S. A. Bernofsky

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 sought a declaration under section 58 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent union no longer represented the employees, alleging that a supervisor was involved in the union's organizing drive and intimidated employees into signing membership cards.

The Board dismissed the application without an inquiry into the merits, finding that the allegations, even if true, did not constitute fraud within the meaning of section 58.

The Board noted that such allegations of employer involvement and intimidation could be filed under other sections of the Act, but would raise concerns of timeliness.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer discharged an employee contrary to the Labour Relations Act due to his union organizing activities.

The employee had a history of absenteeism and alcoholism but was discharged shortly after engaging in union campaigning and making a pro-union speech in the company cafeteria.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, requiring the employer to prove that the discharge was not tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board found the employer's explanation for delaying the discharge to consult with other managers unpersuasive and concluded the employer failed to discharge its burden of proof.

The Board ordered compensation but declined to order reinstatement as the employee had already accepted other employment prior to his discharge.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the complaint, finding ample just cause for the discharge independent of any union activity.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer effected an unlawful lock-out by closing its restaurant shortly after a certification application was filed and representation vote arrangements were made.

The Board found that while the closure involved a withholding of work opportunities, the union failed to prove the specific subjective intent required to constitute a lock-out—namely, the intention to preserve the employment relationship on different terms or to compel employees to refrain from exercising statutory rights.

As the necessary intent was not established, the complaint was dismissed.

During a hearing into an application for certification, the Board investigated allegations that the applicant union submitted membership evidence indicating employees had paid one dollar when they had not.

The Board found that one employee had not paid the dollar, rendering his card invalid.

However, the Board accepted the evidence of union officials over a conflicting witness regarding another card, concluding that the remaining membership documents were reliable despite procedural irregularities.

The matter was relisted for continuation.

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

Following a representation vote, the union alleged employer impropriety, including threats of plant closure and holding a barbecue, and sought to set aside the vote.

The Board held that the union was precluded from raising allegations closely connected to the vote itself because it had signed a waiver, and failed to exercise due diligence in raising earlier allegations.

On the merits, the Board found the union's witness lacked credibility, dismissed the allegations of threats, and found the barbecue did not constitute improper interference.

The Board declined to set aside the representation vote.