R. Ross Dunsmore

The applicant union sought judicial review of decisions by the Ontario Labour Relations Board approving a settlement between a rival union and the employers.

The settlement declared two drugstore chains to be related employers and granted the rival union sole bargaining rights for all employees of the non-unionized chain in Ontario, including the Ottawa region where the applicant traditionally represented employees of the unionized chain.

The applicant was not given notice of the settlement or the underlying applications.

The Divisional Court granted the application for judicial review, finding that the Board breached the duty of procedural fairness by unreasonably requiring the applicant to already represent employees of the non-unionized chain to be entitled to notice.

The Court held that the applicant was significantly affected by the decision and had a right to intervene.

The employer City applied to the Board to determine whether certain platoon chiefs exercised managerial functions under section 54(2) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, despite having already designated them as managerial exclusions under section 54(4).

The Association objected, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the status of designated individuals.

The Board agreed with the Association, finding that the Act provides two mutually exclusive routes for managerial exclusions.

Because the individuals were already conclusively deemed to be exercising managerial functions by virtue of the employer's designation, there was no 'question' for the Board to determine.

The application was permitted to proceed only with respect to non-designated persons.

The applicant union sought a determination of the bargaining unit description following the amalgamation of several municipalities into the City of Hamilton.

The parties agreed the unit should include all firefighters as defined by the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

However, the City requested a clarity note stating that duties of non-firefighters (managerial exclusions) shall be performed outside the bargaining unit, aiming to prevent the union from grieving the assignment of such work.

The Board declined to impose the clarity note, finding that doing so would improperly interfere with the union's right to enforce its collective agreement and bargain over the protection of bargaining unit work.

The Board defined the unit as agreed and remained seized of a separate issue regarding volunteer firefighters.

The responding firefighter associations raised preliminary objections to the employers' applications for declarations of managerial status under section 54(2) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The associations argued that the employers must first exercise their statutory right to designate automatic exclusions under section 54(4) before applying to the Board.

The Hamilton association also argued that the application was barred or premature due to the pending municipal amalgamation.

The Board dismissed the objections, finding that the legislation does not require the employer to use its designations before applying to the Board, and that the pending amalgamation did not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to determine the composition of the existing bargaining unit.

The union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the employers violated the provincial collective agreement by refusing to pay a $70.00 per diem travel allowance to employees working in a designated geographic zone.

The employers argued that the allowance was only payable if employees incurred overnight accommodation expenses, and that they could require proof of actual expenses.

The Board held that the plain language of the collective agreement entitled employees to the allowance whenever they worked a day in the zone, regardless of whether they incurred accommodation expenses.

The agreement only permitted a reduction in the allowance if the employer and the union agreed.

The grievances were allowed.

The applicant employer association referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking a declaration that the Trustees of the Canadian Elevator Industry Pension Plan are not required to accept contributions from employers who are not bound by a valid collective agreement.

The responding trade union objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the dispute originated in Nova Scotia.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the Trustees had exercised their contractual power to refer the policy grievance to arbitration in Ontario.

On the merits, the union conceded the employer's interpretation, and the Board declared that the Trustees are not required to accept contributions from non-member employers.

The complainant employer association alleged that the respondent union breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had insisted on a single province-wide collective agreement for the elevator industry and refused to negotiate a separate agreement for non-ICI work, while negotiating separate non-ICI agreements with individual employers during a lawful strike.

The Board found that the union was bargaining within the scope of its rights and did not violate the Act by pressing its position to impasse or by making interim agreements with individual employers.

The complaint was dismissed.

During a hearing for an application for certification, an issue arose during the cross-examination of a witness regarding a non-pay allegation.

The union requested that the witness be compelled to create twenty specimen signatures or produce documents containing twenty original signatures for comparison by an expert witness.

The Board ruled that the witness had the right to consult with counsel during his testimony under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board declined to compel the creation of new specimen signatures but directed the witness to produce existing documents in his possession containing twenty original signatures to facilitate the hearing.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to hire the grievor, a union president, at various non-nuclear construction sites.

The employer refused to hire the grievor on the basis that he was a security risk, citing his 1975 criminal conviction for conspiracy to export arms and a 1982 arrest at the U.S. border involving the smuggling of aliens.

The Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the union failed to prove the employer acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or in bad faith in assessing the grievor's reliability.

The Board also held that even if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied to the employer's employment decisions, the refusal to hire based on security concerns related to criminal conduct did not violate the grievor's constitutional rights.

The complainant union, Local N-1, filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint seeking the assignment of its members to work on a newly installed Harris N-900 web offset press.

The employer had assigned the work to members of the respondent union, Local 211.

The Board considered factors including skill and training, employer practice, area practice, and collective agreement provisions.

Finding that the offset process requires specific skills that Local 211 members possessed through experience and training, and noting the employer's historical assignment of offset work to Local 211, the Board confirmed the employer's assignment of the work to Local 211.

Two firefighters were compulsorily retired at age 60 pursuant to a collective agreement.

They filed complaints under The Ontario Human Rights Code alleging age discrimination.

The employer argued that the mandatory retirement age was a bona fide occupational qualification under s. 4(6) of the Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the employer failed to adduce sufficient evidence, such as statistical and medical data, to justify the mandatory retirement age.

The Court also held that parties cannot contract out of the Code's provisions through a collective agreement, as it is a public statute enacted for the benefit of the community.