Paul Jarvis

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer breached the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by unilaterally introducing a voluntary performance sharing program.

The employer argued that the program was permitted under the management rights clause or, alternatively, that the union had consented to its introduction.

The Board found that the program impacted wages and was a negotiable matter.

The Board concluded that the union had not agreed to the program's introduction, resulting in a technical breach of section 70 of the Act.

A declaration was issued, but no other remedies were granted as the employer had not intended to breach the Act.

The Teamsters and individual complainants alleged that Steinberg breached the duty to bargain in good faith by negotiating a collective agreement with final offer selection and labour peace provisions, and subsequently selling its Ontario retail operations to A & P. They also alleged that the transaction constituted a sale of the distribution business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, and that the structure of the deal and A & P's subsequent hiring practices were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed all applications and complaints, finding no breach of the duty to bargain in good faith, no sale of the distribution business, and no anti-union animus in the transaction's structure or A & P's hiring practices.

The respondent Steinberg Inc. obtained an ex parte order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Quebec Superior Court staying all proceedings against it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether this stay order applied to ongoing unfair labour practice and related employer proceedings before the Board.

The Board held that the broad language of the CCAA and the court order encompassed its adjudicative processes, notwithstanding the remedial nature of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board further held that the proceedings could not be severed to continue against the co-respondent A&P unless the applicants withdrew their complaints against Steinberg.

The applicants and complainants brought a motion seeking a direction from the Board that the respondent Steinberg produce a witness to testify regarding an allegation of a sale of business under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents argued that the statutory duty under section 64(13) was satisfied because the co-respondent, A&P, had produced a witness.

The Board rejected this argument and directed Steinberg to adduce viva voce testimony of all facts within its knowledge material to the allegation.

Two police officers appealed their convictions and penalties for discreditable conduct after having sexual intercourse with a civilian in their patrol car while on duty.

They argued the matter should have been handled as a public complaint, which would require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and challenged the admissibility of electronically intercepted conversations under Section 8 of the Charter.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeals, finding the complaint was not a public complaint, the Charter arguments failed, and the penalty of dismissal was appropriate given the severe breach of public trust.

During a certification hearing, the applicant union sought to cross-examine the representative of the objecting employees about his duties and responsibilities to challenge the voluntariness of a statement of desire.

The respondent objected, arguing the parties had already agreed the representative was an employee in the bargaining unit.

The Board overruled the objection, holding that while such an agreement creates a rebuttable presumption that the employee does not exercise managerial functions, it does not preclude evidence regarding how other employees perceived the representative's duties and how that perception affected the voluntariness of their signatures.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the proceedings, an objecting employee alleged a 'non-pay', claiming she had not paid the required one dollar for her membership card.

While the Board found the evidence on the non-pay conflicting, it discovered that the union official who signed the Form 9 Declaration Concerning Membership Documents had failed to make any inquiries of the actual collectors regarding the collection of the one-dollar payments.

Applying established Board jurisprudence, the Board held that the failure to make the required inquiries rendered the Form 9 declaration invalid.

Consequently, the membership evidence could not be relied upon, and the application for certification was dismissed.

The union brought applications under sections 1(4), 63, and 89 of the Labour Relations Act challenging the bona fides of Caressant Care's contracting out of dietary and housekeeping services to Versa Services at a new nursing home.

The Board found the arrangement to be a genuine, arm's-length contracting out where Versa Services assumed true control and responsibility for the selection, training, and supervision of the employees.

As the employer relinquished control over the performance of the work and employment relations, the Board dismissed the applications and complaint.

The complainant, a unionized security officer, alleged that the employer violated section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act by denying him access to an involuntary severance plan that was available to non-unionized employees.

The complainant sought to take early retirement and receive severance payments in addition to his pension.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had negotiated different benefits for its members, such as job security and recall rights, and had never sought to bargain for the severance plan.

The Board concluded that the employer's provision of different benefits to unrepresented employees did not constitute improper discrimination under the Act.

The applicant union referred a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay the grievor a subsistence allowance.

The grievor claimed his regular residence was in Nova Scotia, where his family had temporarily moved, while he remained in his Oshawa home and commuted to the project.

The Board found that the grievor's regular residence remained in Oshawa, as he continued to live, sleep, and eat there, and maintained financial commitments for the property.

The grievance was dismissed.

The complainant, a long-service employee with an alcohol problem, was discharged by Ontario Hydro after failing to comply with the conditions of a mandatory referral to the Employee Assistance Program.

The respondent union refused to file a grievance on his behalf, relying on a policy agreement with the employer not to grieve discipline arising from proper mandatory referrals under the Program.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's policy was based on sound labour relations principles (supporting 'constructive coercion' in addiction treatment) and that its application to the complainant was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent teachers employed by the respondent at Humewood House School.

The respondent objected, arguing the applicant was not a trade union under the Labour Relations Act because it included principals and vice-principals who exercise managerial functions.

The Board questioned its own jurisdiction, noting that the Labour Relations Act does not apply to teachers as defined in the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

The Board declined to accept the parties' agreement on jurisdiction and the appropriate bargaining unit, and directed a further hearing to receive evidence on these issues.