Richard John Nixon

The respondents requested the removal of certain corporate and personal respondents from a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, family status, and reprisal.

The respondents also requested that the application be deferred pending a WSIB proceeding.

The Tribunal removed three corporate respondents on consent but declined to remove the remaining corporate and personal respondents, finding that complex issues of fact and law regarding corporate liability following an asset sale should not be determined at a preliminary stage.

The Tribunal also denied the deferral request, noting there was no active WSIB proceeding and a WSIB decision would not resolve the human rights issues.

The corporate respondent brought a motion to strike portions of the pleadings filed by the Commission and the complainant.

The respondent argued that allegations relating to events after the date of the original complaint, allegations not raised in the original complaint, and allegations in the complainant's pleadings that contradicted or added to the Commission's pleadings should be struck.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the impugned material facts formed part of the continuum of events of the complaint, and that the complainant has independent party status under the Code to file her own pleadings.

The respondent, Kimberly-Clark Inc., brought a motion requesting that the adjudicator recuse himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator had disclosed that he was acting as a non-witness consultant for the plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Manulife Financial, a company that provided services to the respondent and whose actions were implicated in the human rights complaint.

The adjudicator granted the recusal motion, finding that his inability to provide full details of his consulting arrangement due to solicitor-client privilege, combined with the potential need to rule on Manulife's status in the proceedings, established a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent's request for an order directing the appointment of a specific type of substitute adjudicator was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant employer sought a declaration under section 127.2(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 that the responding trade unions no longer represented its employees, asserting it was a non-construction employer.

A preliminary issue arose regarding which party bore the legal and evidentiary burden of proving whether the applicant employed persons in the construction industry represented by the unions on the application date.

The Board held that the applicant bears the legal burden of establishing all necessary conditions for the declaration, including that it did not employ any such employees on the application date.

The Board also granted the applicant's motion to take a view of its operations.

The applicant sought declarations terminating the bargaining rights of construction trade unions under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Preliminary issues arose regarding the late filing of a response by Local 1410 and requests for production and particulars.

The Board exercised its discretion to accept the late response, noting the applicant's prior consent to an extension and the lack of prejudice.

The Board also ordered the applicant to produce lists of construction projects, contractors, and employees engaged in relevant trades, finding the information arguably relevant to whether the applicant is a non-construction employer.

The applicant, an employee in the Southwestern Ontario bargaining unit, filed an application alleging the union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to provide adequate notice of a ratification vote.

The union had provided individual written notice to employees with known addresses and published advertisements in local newspapers.

The applicant, who received individual notice and voted, argued that newspaper advertisements were inadequate because some employees allegedly did not see them.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union took reasonable steps to inform employees of the vote in a timely manner, especially given the lack of a common workplace.

The Board also noted the applicant's delay in filing and the substantial prejudice that would result from setting aside the vote.

The applicant, Ensign Security Services Inc., acquired security contracts at three sites in Ottawa previously held by Pinkerton's and Burns.

The United Steelworkers of America held bargaining rights for the predecessor employers' employees, while the Canadian Security Union held municipal-wide bargaining rights for Ensign's employees.

Ensign applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under sections 64 and 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act to resolve the conflict in bargaining rights resulting from the intermingling of employees.

The Board found that section 64.2 acts as a doorway to section 64, and does not mandate site-specific bargaining rights that override broader-based rights.

To avoid severe fragmentation and administrative difficulties, the Board declared that Ensign is no longer bound by the predecessor's collective agreement with the Steelworkers, and that the Canadian Security Union is the bargaining agent for all Ensign security guards in the region.

The applicant union filed unfair labour practice complaints against the responding party, a successor employer providing security services.

The responding party brought preliminary motions to dismiss the complaints, arguing that the union's three-and-a-half month delay in filing prejudiced its ability to defend the claims, and that the statutory freeze under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act did not apply because it had not received formal Board notice of the certification application prior to the successorship.

The Board dismissed the delay motion, finding the delay was short and any prejudice could be addressed remedially.

The Board also dismissed the notice motion, interpreting section 64(3) of the Act to mean that the statutory freeze environment flows through to the successor employer regardless of whether it received formal Board notice.

The union applied for certification to represent security guards employed by the responding party.

The parties disagreed on the description of the bargaining unit.

The union proposed a municipality-wide unit, while the employer argued for a site-specific unit limited to the single location where it currently operated in the municipality.

The Board followed its established practice for single-location operations and determined that a municipality-wide bargaining unit was appropriate.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the suspension of a shop employee.

The respondent employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing it was not an employer in the construction industry and the grievance did not relate to construction work.

The Board found that the respondent was an employer in the construction industry because it installed railings in houses under construction.

Following previous Board jurisprudence, the Board held that section 124 is available to any union and employer meeting the statutory definitions in section 117, regardless of whether the specific work underlying the grievance is construction work.

The Board assumed jurisdiction and directed the matter to be listed for continuation.

The applicant employers' organization sought accreditation as the exclusive bargaining agent for employers in the sewers and watermains sector.

The Board previously issued certificates of accreditation despite unresolved questions regarding whether two specific employers should be included in the unit, finding that the applicant met the double majority test under s. 127(2) of the Labour Relations Act regardless of the outcome.

The Board issued reasons for this jurisdictional finding, drawing an analogy to certification cases where unresolved employee status issues do not affect the union's right to certification.

The parties subsequently agreed on the status of the two employers, and the Board finalized the lists of employers.

The Board also varied the accreditation orders and certificates on consent to correct an error and clarify potential ambiguity.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union and its Local 1036.

At the initial hearing, the Board dismissed the application on a motion by the respondents, finding that all affiliated local unions named in the provincial collective agreement were necessary parties and had not been properly named or given sufficient notice.

Upon reconsideration, the Board found that all affiliated locals had in fact received actual notice and were represented at the hearing.

Concluding that it was overly technical to deny an amendment to the title of the proceedings, the Board revoked its earlier dismissal, amended the title nunc pro tunc to include all affiliated locals as respondents, and directed that the application be scheduled for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant employers' organization applied for accreditation in the construction industry under section 125 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant was a properly constituted employers' organization and that the proposed unit of employers was appropriate for collective bargaining.

The Board determined that the applicant represented a majority of the employers in the unit, who in turn employed a majority of the employees affected.

Although all statutory requirements for accreditation were met, the Board withheld the issuance of the certificate pending a determination on whether it would continue its practice of compiling a Final Schedule 'F' of employers.

The applicant unions sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act to bind Delform Construction Limited and Ilena Construction Limited to the provincial ICI agreement binding Hardrock Forming Company.

The Board found that Delform had an established collective bargaining relationship with Labourers' Local 183.

The Board dismissed the application, reasoning that issuing a related employer declaration would create a conflict with Local 183's established bargaining rights and precipitate a jurisdictional dispute.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent's seed and feed operations in Blenheim, Ontario.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that its operations fell under federal jurisdiction pursuant to section 45 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and section 92(10)(c) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Board reviewed the nature of the respondent's operations, which included a feed mill, feed warehouse, and seed cleaning mills.

The Board concluded that these facilities were works declared by Parliament to be for the general advantage of Canada, placing them within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of constitutional jurisdiction.

The applicant trade unions sought to add Conrad Black and Hollinger Inc. as respondents to related employer and unfair labour practice applications involving Willett Foods Limited and various franchisees.

A previous panel of the Board had already dismissed a similar request by one of the unions to add Black and a predecessor corporation.

The Board applied principles analogous to res judicata and issue estoppel, finding that the new allegations did not materially alter the basis of the claims.

The Board reaffirmed that section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act is not intended merely to provide access to 'deep pockets' absent allegations of a transfer of work or other attempts to frustrate collective bargaining.

The request to add the respondents was denied, and the complaints against them were dismissed.

In a complex proceeding involving nearly two hundred parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions regarding the service of documents and the addition of respondents.

The Board ruled that service on a party's agent or counsel would be sufficient, and established a procedure for amending applications to add respondents by analogy to the Board's Rules of Procedure, requiring the applicant to provide amended filings and notice to all parties.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.

The union filed acceptable membership evidence for over 70 percent of the employees in the unit at the time of the application, exceeding the 55 percent required for automatic certification.

The respondent employer requested that the Board exercise its discretion to order a representation vote due to a planned build-up of the workforce from 70 to 156 employees.

The Board applied its established build-up principles, noting that even at the halfway point of the projected build-up, the union would likely maintain support of approximately 65 percent of the employees.

Consequently, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted outright certification to the applicant.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employed non-union workers without referral slips.

At the hearing, the respondent argued the applicant should be restricted to the grievance as filed and precluded from raising interpretation issues not explicitly pleaded.

The Board ruled that a grievance need only particularize the factual allegations and reference the relevant collective agreement provisions, and the respondent is not entitled to particulars of the applicant's legal theory.

The matter was adjourned to be heard alongside a related grievance.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing it did not operate a business in the construction industry.

The respondent's business involved fabricating and setting up temporary display structures for shows and exhibitions.

The Board applied the fixture versus chattel distinction and found that the temporary, moveable display structures were chattels rather than fixtures or real property.

Consequently, the Board held that the respondent was not an employer in the construction industry and dismissed the applications for lack of jurisdiction.