Richard A. Blair

The applicant filed a third application for termination of bargaining rights shortly after a previous application was dismissed.

The union argued the application was untimely under the newly enacted Interim Rules of Procedure and that the Board should refuse to entertain it due to the multiplicity of applications.

The Board relieved against the strict application of the new rules, finding the application timely.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the application, balancing the employees' right to test union support against the need for stability in the collective bargaining relationship.

The Board imposed a one-year bar on further applications by the applicant.

The applicant union filed an application for certification during the open period of the intervenor's expired collective agreement with the responding party employer.

The intervenor subsequently gave notice under the Social Contract Act to revive and extend the expired collective agreement, and argued this retroactively closed the open period and rendered the certification application untimely.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's objection, holding that the Social Contract Act does not manifest a clear legislative intent to operate retroactively to interfere with vested representation rights or invalidate an application that was timely when filed.

The Board directed that the ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote be counted.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of clerical employees at a medical centre, explicitly excluding registered nurses.

The responding employer argued that the appropriate unit should be an all-employee unit including the nurses.

The Board examined the community of interest and the extensive overlap in duties between the clerical staff and nurses, particularly in reception and patient handling.

The majority concluded that excluding the nurses would likely cause serious labour relations problems, such as jurisdictional disputes, due to the high degree of functional integration.

Finding the proposed unit inappropriate and noting the union lacked sufficient support for the broader all-employee unit, the Board dismissed the application.

A dissenting member would have granted the proposed unit to facilitate access to collective bargaining.

The applicant sought an exemption from paying union dues on religious grounds, arguing that her anti-abortion beliefs conflicted with the union's pro-choice policy.

The trade union opposed the application as untimely under section 47(2) of the Labour Relations Act, since the applicant was not employed when the first collective agreement requiring dues deduction was entered into.

The applicant argued the Human Rights Code should override the Act to prevent constructive discrimination.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it untimely and affirming that the Human Rights Code does not have primacy over the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant union (CUPE) alleged that the respondent university violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting the University of Toronto Staff Association (UTSA) from using the university's internal mail service to distribute CUPE organizing materials.

UTSA had historically enjoyed unrestricted access to the mail system.

The university argued that permitting the distribution of union organizing materials would constitute employer support for a trade union, violating sections 13 and 64 of the Act.

The Board held that the university's restriction of an existing practice constituted interference with the union's rights.

The Board declared a violation of section 64 and directed the university to permit UTSA access to the internal mail service in the manner previously enjoyed.

The complainant alleged that his former employer and union conspired to dismiss him, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint should be dismissed due to delay and res judicata.

The majority of the Board refused to dismiss the complaint on the basis of delay, finding that the complainant only had suspicions until the alleged conspiracy was made public, and that res judicata did not apply.

The Board unanimously ruled that the reverse onus provision in subsection 89(5) applied, as the complaint involved allegations of anti-union animus affecting employment.

The Board ordered the employer to proceed first with its evidence.

The applicant, Independent Local 385, applied under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that it acquired the bargaining rights of its predecessor by reason of a transfer of jurisdiction following its disaffiliation from the Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers.

The respondents argued that the parent union, not the local, held the bargaining rights and that the local disaffiliated without them.

The Board found that the local union had held the bargaining rights for over a decade and retained them upon disaffiliation.

Because the applicant already held the bargaining rights and its identity continued unchanged, it was not a successor trade union.

The application was therefore dismissed.