Richard John Nixon

The applicant employer sought relief under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union and its officials called or encouraged an unlawful strike.

The dispute arose after the employer unilaterally introduced a new 'super-classification' that had been rejected during collective bargaining.

In protest, the union organized five-minute work stoppages.

The Board found that the work stoppages constituted an unlawful strike and that the union officials had encouraged them.

The Board rejected the union's argument that the employer's conduct justified withholding relief, noting that the parties had access to grievance and arbitration procedures.

The Board issued declarations and cease and desist directions against the union and its officials.

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

The respondent and interveners challenged the applicant's status, arguing it was not a properly constituted employers' organization under the Labour Relations Act due to alleged defects in its by-laws and their enactment.

The Board found that the applicant was an employers' organization within the meaning of the Act and that its by-laws were properly enacted.

The Board held that imposing additional pre-conditions for accreditation based on internal by-law provisions would exceed its jurisdiction, and concluded the applicant was a properly constituted organization.

The complainant was previously found to have been discriminated against on the basis of race and colour when denied the opportunity to work as a welder on a project in Jamaica.

In this remedy decision, the Board of Inquiry awarded special damages for lost wages, pension contributions, and health and welfare benefits, deducting income earned in mitigation.

The Board found the complainant reasonably mitigated his damages despite refusing a short-term job offer in Alberta.

General damages of $4,500 were awarded for the devastating effect the discrimination had on the complainant.

Total damages of $34,886.33 plus interest were ordered.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit but disputed whether sixteen employees laid off on the morning of the application date should be included in the count.

The employees had reported for work with a reasonable expectation of working but were given termination notices before their shift began.

Applying established Board jurisprudence, the Board held that the employees should be included in the count.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board issued a certificate.

The Board was asked to determine whether the construction of the Baker Centre, a non-profit combined nursing home, retirement home, and day-care facility, fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector or the residential sector of the construction industry.

After hearing extensive evidence on industry practice and the nature of the facility, the Board concluded that the project fell within the ICI sector.

The Board reasoned that the facility is an institution providing a socially beneficial service, with residents conducting daily activities in shared areas under the direction of a management firm, distinguishing it from typical residential construction.

The complainant, a black Canadian welder of Jamaican origin, alleged that the respondent company discriminated against him by refusing to refer him for work on a project in Jamaica.

Despite successfully completing the required welding tests and being assured he would be selected, the complainant was bypassed in favour of white welders.

The respondent argued that the selection was based on work quality and that the decision was made outside Ontario.

The Board of Inquiry rejected the respondent's explanations, finding that the decision was influenced by the complainant's race and colour, particularly following the company's negative experience with another black worker.

The Board upheld the complaint and retained jurisdiction to determine the remedy.

The applicant union sought to add parent corporations and individual shareholders as respondents to ongoing section 1(4) and 89 proceedings against the employer.

The union alleged that these entities and individuals controlled the employer and sought to add them to ensure recovery of any claims.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, holding that section 1(4) is intended to preserve bargaining rights, not to provide a 'deep pocket' for recovery where there has been no transfer of work or erosion of bargaining rights.

The Board also found no exceptional circumstances to affix personal liability under section 89.

The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by arbitrarily deciding not to refer her termination grievance to arbitration.

The union committee had concluded that the grievance lacked merit because the complainant failed to provide adequate medical documentation in a timely manner, and her explanations were inconsistent.

The Board found that the union officials directed their minds to the grievance, considered the collective agreement, and made a decision based on their experience.

The Board held that the union's conduct was not arbitrary, reckless, or grossly negligent, and dismissed the complaint.

The union requested a hearing to quantify damages from a previous grievance award and to amend the style of cause to add a related company, J.B. Carroll Electric Limited, following a section 1(4) declaration by another panel.

The Board held that amending the style of cause was unnecessary because the section 1(4) declaration already made the two companies one employer for the purposes of the Act, meaning the assets of both were susceptible to legal process.

The Board also determined the appropriate interest rate on the agreed-upon compensation of $42,149.25, rejecting the employer's argument for a fluctuating rate and fixing it at 11% from March 11, 1983.

The applicant union referred grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent successor employer breached the collective agreement by failing to pay union wages and benefits after a sale of business.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction over non-construction work and that the grievors failed to mitigate their damages by refusing to work for the new non-union company.

The Board held it had jurisdiction under sections 124 and 89 to hear all aspects of the grievances.

The Board further held that the grievors were not required to mitigate their losses by accepting employment on substantially poorer terms, and that the respondent's liability commenced on the date of the sale, not the date of the Board's prior successor rights declaration.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

At the hearing, the unrepresented applicant requested an adjournment to retain legal counsel, which the respondent opposed.

The Board noted that the applicant's written membership evidence failed to state the amount of dues paid, and the applicant sought to adduce oral evidence to cure this defect.

The Board refused the adjournment, holding that its Rules of Procedure and established jurisprudence strictly prohibit oral evidence to establish the fact of membership, allowing it only to identify and substantiate written evidence.

As the written evidence was deficient and could not be cured by oral testimony, the Board found no employees were members of the applicant on the application date and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a designated employer bargaining agency, filed a complaint alleging that the respondent companies and trade unions violated the Labour Relations Act by continuing to work and supply employees during a lawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The respondents argued that pneumatic control work was governed by a separate national agreement and fell outside the provincial agreement.

The Board found that the respondent companies perform pneumatic control installation work within the ICI sector, which is a specialization of the plumbing and pipe fitting trade.

The Board declared the national agreement null and void in the ICI sector, but delayed the effect of the declaration until the expiration of the current provincial agreement to allow the parties to integrate the work.

The complainant union and two registered nurses alleged that the respondent nursing home laid off the nurses due to anti-union animus, contrary to sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act, and that the layoffs violated the statutory freeze under section 13 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board found that the layoffs were necessitated by a Ministry directive to transfer extended care residents, reducing the required nursing hours.

The decision on whom to lay off was made by the respondent's solicitor based on seniority, without knowledge of union membership.

The Board concluded there was no anti-union animus and that the employer was permitted to implement layoffs during the freeze period to respond to legitimate business needs, as there was no established pattern for layoffs.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer bargained in bad faith by failing to disclose its plans to change the role of a home for the aged and construct a new facility.

However, the union learned of these plans months before it signed a memorandum of settlement and a collective agreement.

The employer requested that the bad faith bargaining complaint be struck out.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to hear the complaint, finding that because the union had ample notice of the true state of affairs before concluding the collective agreement, it was not deprived of the opportunity to respond in bargaining.

As the complaint did not disclose a breach of the Act on its face, it was dismissed.

The complainants alleged that the respondent terminated Margaret O'Connor's employment because she testified at an arbitration hearing, contrary to section 80 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued that an arbitration hearing is not a 'proceeding under this Act' and therefore section 80 did not apply.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a board of arbitration or sole arbitrator is a statutory tribunal constituted under the Act, and thus a hearing before such a tribunal is a 'proceeding under this Act'.

Consequently, witnesses at arbitration hearings are protected against reprisals.

The complaint was adjourned sine die at the request of the parties.