Peter J. Thorup

The applicant union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The respondent argued that the occasional teachers were already covered by a subsisting collective agreement through voluntary recognition, pointing to a personnel manual incorporated into the agreement.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the collective agreement and relevant legislation clearly excluded occasional teachers, and the personnel manual did not constitute a valid voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and, based on the results of a pre-hearing representation vote, granted certification to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer alleged irregularities in the union's membership evidence, pointing to a letter sent by the union to employees asking them to confirm their membership and payment of the $1.00 fee.

The employer argued this raised a suspicion about the evidence and requested a representation vote.

The Board held that the letter was consistent with the union taking extra precautions regarding the accuracy of its membership evidence and did not raise a suspicion.

The Board accepted the membership evidence and granted certification.

One Board member dissented, arguing a vote should have been ordered.

The applicant brought an application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act seeking a declaration that it is under the direction and control of the Crown in Right of Ontario and that they are related employers.

The Crown challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the Labour Relations Act does not bind the Crown pursuant to section 11 of the Interpretation Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the Labour Relations Act is not binding on the Crown.

The Board concluded it had no jurisdiction to find the Crown to be a related employer or bound by a collective agreement, and terminated the proceedings.

The applicant union sought a declaration that there was a sale of a business between the respondents under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, and a declaration under section 1(4) that they constitute one employer.

The respondents, a unionized general contractor and a non-unionized holding company, admitted to common control but denied carrying on related activities.

The Board found that while the entities carried on related activities under common control, there was no evidence of an actual erosion of the union's bargaining rights or a scheme to defeat them.

The application was dismissed, with the Board declining to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units of the respondent's employees shortly after a related union lost a representation vote for an all-employee unit.

The respondent argued the Board should refuse to entertain the new applications under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that the two unions have separate and distinct status under the Act, and the bar imposed on the first union did not apply to the applicant.

However, the Board appointed an officer to inquire into the appropriateness of the smaller bargaining units sought by the applicant.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent companies constituted one employer.

The respondents conceded the statutory prerequisites were met but argued the Board should exercise its discretion not to make the declaration.

The Board found that while the companies were under common control, the unionized company was largely inactive and there was no siphoning of work from the unionized enterprise to the non-union one.

Furthermore, the union did not represent any of the employees of the non-union company at the time the voluntary recognition agreement was signed.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to make the declaration and dismissed the application.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units at the respondent hotel.

The Board found that the head housekeeper exercised managerial functions and excluded him from the units.

The respondent argued that the application should be dismissed under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act because the head housekeeper, acting as management, solicited union memberships.

The Board held that section 12 did not apply because the head housekeeper was acting contrary to the employer's interests and employees did not perceive him as acting on behalf of management.

However, due to concerns about threats of job loss and misrepresentations made by the head housekeeper during the organizing campaign, the Board exercised its discretion to order a representation vote.