86 total
Board declares transfer of undertaking from Crown to municipality and applicant union as bargaining agent.
The applicants sought a declaration under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act that a transfer of an undertaking had occurred from the Crown to the municipality.
The Crown had conveyed the administration of a part of its Family Benefits Act program to the municipality, and six former Crown employees accepted employment there.
The respondent union argued no transfer occurred because the Crown lacked statutory authority to have the work performed by non-Crown employees.
The Board held that the legal authority of the Crown to effect a transfer is not determinative of whether a transfer occurred under the Act.
Finding that a transfer and intermingling of employees had occurred, the Board declared that the municipality was no longer bound by the respondent union's collective agreement and that the applicant union was the bargaining agent for all employees in the unit.
The one-year protection period against termination of bargaining rights commences from the final certificate, not interim certification.
The applicant filed an application for the termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights.
The union had received interim certification on May 25, 1981, and a final certificate on June 30, 1981.
The application was filed on June 9, 1982.
The issue was whether the one-year period under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act, during which a union is protected from termination applications, runs from the date of interim certification or the final certificate.
The Board held that the one-year period commences on the date the final certificate is issued, as interim certification does not finally determine the bargaining unit.
Consequently, the application was dismissed as untimely.
Employee conversation at a social event during the silent period does not constitute prohibited campaigning.
The intervener trade union objected to the results of a representation vote, alleging that an employee supporting the applicant union violated the silent period by attempting to persuade other employees at a social event.
The Board dismissed the objection, finding that a conversation between employees at an unconnected social event did not constitute 'campaigning' or an organized attempt to persuade.
A certificate was issued to the applicant union.
Complaint dismissed; employer's veto of a hiring recommendation did not violate the statutory freeze.
The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 70 of the Act by altering its hiring procedure.
The dispute arose when the employer's Executive Director vetoed the hiring of a contract employee for a permanent position, despite the employee being the unanimous choice of the cottage staff.
The Board found that while the cottage staff had a long-standing privilege of making hiring recommendations, ultimate decision-making authority had always rested with senior management.
The employer's decision to overrule the recommendation was within its established management rights and did not constitute a breach of the statutory freeze.
The complaint was dismissed.
Board refuses to expand bargaining unit in displacement application without separate majority support from unrepresented employees.
The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing technical paramedical employees and to expand the bargaining unit to include previously unrepresented professional paramedical employees.
The Board held that in a displacement application, a union cannot sweep in a group of previously unrepresented employees solely on the strength of its membership support in the incumbent's unit.
The Board found the incumbent's bargaining unit to be the appropriate unit, ordered a representation vote for that unit, and dismissed the application as it related to the unrepresented professional employees due to insufficient membership support.
Board issues certification, finding new statutory provisions preclude historical distinction between labourers' locals' bargaining units.
The applicant trade union, Local 183, applied for certification for a unit of construction labourers.
The Board considered whether to continue its historical policy of distinguishing between the bargaining units granted to Local 183 and Local 506 in the Toronto area, given the new section 131a of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board held that section 131a contains mandatory directives regarding the appropriate bargaining unit, which precludes the Board from continuing the previous distinction or making sectoral determinations as a condition precedent to certification.
The Board found that both locals are entitled to apply under either subsection 1 or 3 of section 131a, and issued certificates to the applicant for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector province-wide, and for all other sectors in the local geographic area.