Robert W. Little

The applicant union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that Westinghouse Canada Inc. was a successor or related employer to Westinghouse Electric Corporation.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the collective agreement relied upon by the union was limited to the United States and had no extraterritorial application in Ontario.

The Board found that the collective agreement was silent on geographic scope and contained provisions specific to American law.

As there was no evidence of intent or past practice applying the agreement outside the U.S., the Board held the agreement did not apply in Ontario.

The application was dismissed as there were no bargaining rights to preserve.

The complainant, an observant Jewish employee, alleged discrimination on the basis of creed because she was required to use vacation time, lieu time, or unpaid leave to observe Jewish holy days.

The employer rejected her proposal to make up the time by working overtime, arguing that not all employees had overtime available.

The Board of Inquiry found that while the employer's holiday schedule was secular and not directly discriminatory, it had an adverse effect on the complainant.

The Board held that the employer failed in its duty to accommodate, as it did not establish that the proposed accommodation would cause undue hardship.

However, no damages were awarded because the complainant suffered no monetary loss and bad faith was not established.

The applicants sought interim orders staying the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement respecting Generation Projects, alleging that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers had improperly negotiated the agreement to the detriment of Local 1788 members.

The Board first determined that while it lacked jurisdiction to grant substantive interim relief under section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, it possessed such jurisdiction under section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

However, the Board dismissed the application on its merits, finding that the alleged harm was speculative and personal, and that the applicants had engaged in undue delay in seeking relief.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that the responding parties breached section 79 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to conduct an employee ratification vote for a memorandum of settlement in the construction industry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that section 44 of the Act explicitly exempts the construction industry from mandatory employee ratification votes.

The Board held that a trade union in the construction industry is free to choose a ratification process that does not include a vote of employees, such as a vote of accredited delegates.

The applicants alleged that the responding union violated section 79(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by establishing a ratification and strike vote procedure that was not reasonably convenient and did not provide ample opportunity to cast ballots.

The union had to organize a vote for approximately 65,000 employees across 4,000 work sites within 14 days.

The Board found that the union's voting arrangements, which included scheduling specific times and places while accommodating individual requests for changes, were sensible and responsive to diverse employee needs.

The Board held that 'reasonable convenience' under section 79(9) requires considering all circumstances, including the union's logistical challenges, and does not guarantee a vote during working hours or at the workplace.

The application was dismissed.

In a human rights complaint alleging discrimination on the basis of sex regarding the denial of sick leave benefits during a pregnancy-related leave, the respondents brought preliminary motions.

The adjudicator ruled that the Commission was not required to call the physicians who authored medical certificates as witnesses, as the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits the admission of hearsay documents.

However, if the respondents chose to call the employer-nominated physician, they would be permitted to cross-examine her, and she would be required to produce her clinical notes from the single consultation.

The respondents' motion for complete pre-hearing disclosure of the complainant's medical files was denied as untimely, overbroad, and lacking sufficient evidentiary basis.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer breached the collective agreement by employing non-union members to perform bargaining unit work.

The employer argued that following a corporate restructuring, the non-union employees became shareholders and directors, and thus fell within the 'owners and managers' exception in the collective agreement.

The Board found that the employees' duties remained unchanged and did not involve supervising the work of others.

The Board upheld the grievance, finding the employer in breach of the union security and hiring provisions of the collective agreement.

The applicant employer sought a cease and desist direction against the respondent union and its officials for an alleged unlawful strike.

The employees had refused to work on a 'Sears job', claiming it was 'struck work' from a sister local's dispute, relying on a provision in their collective agreement that permitted such refusals.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the concerted refusal to work constituted an unlawful sympathetic strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ruled that parties cannot contract out of the statutory prohibition against mid-contract strikes, rendering the collective agreement's 'struck work' clause void as a defence to the unlawful strike application.

The Board issued declarations and directions to cease the unlawful activity.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

During the hearing, the Board ruled that evidence of discussions with a mediator and a Board Officer was inadmissible due to statutory confidentiality and settlement privilege.

The union subsequently asserted that a settlement had been reached, causing the respondent's counsel to become a potential witness.

The respondent requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The Board granted the adjournment, holding that the 30-day time limit in section 40a(2) of the Labour Relations Act is directory rather than mandatory, and that natural justice required the adjournment.

A dissenting Board member argued the time limits should be considered mandatory.

The complainant alleged sex discrimination after being excluded from working in the Inco Pressure Carbonyl (IPC) processing area due to a company policy barring women of child-bearing potential.

The employer argued the policy was necessary to protect fetuses from potential exposure to nickel carbonyl gas.

The Board of Inquiry held that discrimination based on child-bearing potential constitutes sex discrimination.

The Board further found that the exclusionary policy was not a reasonable and bona fide occupational qualification, as the risk to a fetus was minimal and the policy was over-inclusive.

The employer was ordered to train and place the complainant in the IPC area and to abandon the exclusionary policy.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board examined the voluntariness of the petition signed by employees in support of the application.

The Board found that the applicant had misrepresented to employees that he had a confidential source indicating that previous benefits would be reinstated if the union was decertified, leading employees to perceive a link with management.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition was not voluntary and dismissed the application.

A dissenting board member would have ordered a representation vote.