R. C. Filion

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints against the respondent, a numbered company that purchased the business of Chandelle Fashions after it went into receivership and bankruptcy.

The Board ordered a representation vote for the certification application due to a voluntary employee petition.

The Board found the respondent committed an unfair labour practice by failing to recall two key union supporters and ordered their reinstatement with compensation.

However, the Board dismissed the union's applications under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, holding that while a sale of a business occurred, a bona fide purchaser without notice is not liable to remedy the predecessor's unfair labour practices, and the two entities were not related employers.

The complainant trade council sought an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act to restore a work assignment after the respondent employer cancelled a general contract and announced its intention to complete the remaining construction work using its own employees.

The Board declined to issue the interim order, finding that the statutory requirement of an imminent or existing strike 'by reason of the assignment of work' was not met, as there were no building trades employees left on the site to strike, and the picketing did not stop the employer's own employees from working.

The main complaint was referred for further processing.

In an application for certification, the respondent employer alleged that an employee signed a union membership card but failed to pay the required $1.00 initiation fee.

The Board heard evidence from the employee, the collector, and other witnesses.

The majority of the Board found that the employee did not pay the $1.00 and that the collector had misled the union official who signed the Form 9 declaration.

Consequently, the Board declined to give any weight to the 20 membership cards collected by that individual.

The Board reserved its decision on whether to apply section 8 of the Act until the unfair labour practice allegations were heard.

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.

The applicants, construction contractors at the Eldorado nuclear refinery project, sought a cease and desist order under section 123 of the Labour Relations Act against members of the Labourers' International Union, Local 1036, and other trades.

The Board found that the Labourers engaged in an unlawful strike by refusing to work and setting up a picket line over various grievances.

The Board also found that employees of other trades who refused to cross the picket line engaged in an unlawful strike.

The Board issued cease and desist orders directing the employees to return to work, but dismissed the application against three employees who had already been discharged.

The complainant employer bargaining agency alleged that the respondent union violated section 134a(1) of the Labour Relations Act by failing to authorize a strike for all employees in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, specifically by continuing to supply workers for maintenance work.

The Board examined whether the work performed under various maintenance agreements constituted construction work or maintenance work.

The Board found that while most of the work was maintenance and thus outside the ICI sector, some minor new construction work was performed in violation of the Act.

However, given the union's reasonable efforts to comply and the complainant's members' inconsistent conduct, the Board declined to issue a cease and desist order and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant teachers' federation alleged that the respondent school board unlawfully locked out high school teachers when it closed the schools for two days during a work-to-rule campaign.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the school closure was motivated by collective bargaining considerations and thus constituted a lock-out rather than a purely administrative closure, the lock-out was lawful because the statutory preconditions—an ongoing lawful strike and public consideration of the teachers' final offer—had been met.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant alleged he was discharged contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after raising concerns about frayed electrical cables on vacuum cleaners.

The Board found that the complainant's communications with management primarily focused on criticizing his supervisor's competence rather than raising specific safety hazards.

The Board concluded the discharge was motivated by the complainant's insubordinate conduct and his inappropriate method of communicating complaints via a client's log book, which embarrassed the employer, rather than any attempt to enforce the Act.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant alleged he was discharged by the respondent bus company because of his union organizing activities, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent maintained the discharge was purely disciplinary, citing the complainant's poor work record, lateness, and failure to perform safety checks.

The Board found no evidence that the employer knew of the complainant's union activities at the time of discharge.

The complaint was dismissed as the Board concluded the termination was solely for disciplinary reasons.