Sean McGee

The union applied for a declaration that Ottawa Valley Autistic Homes is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA) and that a lock-out by the employer was illegal.

The Board advised the Minister that the agency, which provides residential and vocational services to autistic individuals, is an institution operated for the observation, care, or treatment of persons afflicted with a physical or mental illness, and thus qualifies as a hospital.

However, the Board dismissed the application for a declaration of an illegal lock-out, finding that the lock-out was legal under the Labour Relations Act until the Minister formally replaced the initial no-board report with a notice under the HLDAA.

The employer applied under section 5(2) of the transitional provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that a combined full-time and part-time bargaining unit was no longer appropriate.

The union argued that the Board should apply its modern approach to community of interest, focusing on whether the combined unit caused serious labour relations problems.

The Board rejected this approach, finding that the transitional provisions required a traditional community of interest analysis.

Given the significant differences in terms and conditions of employment and the traditional nature of the part-time student workforce, the Board found no community of interest and declared the combined unit inappropriate.

The Perth and Smiths Falls District Hospital applied under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act to merge certain bargaining units following the amalgamation of the Smiths Falls Community Hospital and the Great War Memorial Hospital.

The Hospital argued that the merger resulted in an intermingling of employees, justifying the consolidation of bargaining units represented by CUPE, OPSEU, and ICTU.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that while services and management had been integrated, there was no significant intermingling of employees or transfer of job opportunities between the two locations that would call into question the logic of the existing bargaining structures.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer contravened section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using six individuals to perform bargaining unit work during a lawful strike.

The individuals had been hired or transferred into pre-existing managerial positions after notice to bargain was given, without increasing the overall managerial complement.

The majority of the Board held that the plain language and purposive interpretation of section 73.1 prohibited the employer from using these individuals to perform the work of striking employees, regardless of whether the overall number of managers increased.

The employer was ordered to cease and desist from using the individuals for bargaining unit work.

A dissenting opinion argued this interpretation created an inequity not intended by the Legislature.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent's Airline Services Division.

An employee sought to file a petition objecting to certification, but delivered it to the wrong office, missing the terminal date.

The Board declined to extend the terminal date, finding its notices clear.

The union had mailed its original membership cards to the Board, but they were lost in transit.

The Board accepted photocopies of the cards as the best available evidence, satisfied they were lost through no fault of the union.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit should be restricted to the specific operating division rather than municipal-wide, given the employer's history of division-based collective bargaining.

Interim certification was granted.

The applicant union applied for certification and a pre-hearing vote was held, with the ballot box sealed pending the resolution of disputed matters.

The respondent and intervener challenged the applicant's trade union status, its jurisdiction to organize the employees under its Charter, and argued that a six-month bar imposed on a sister local should apply to the applicant.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act and held that it had jurisdiction to organize the employees.

The Board also determined that the applicant was a distinct entity from its sister local, and therefore the six-month bar did not apply.

The Board ordered the ballots to be counted.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred between the respondent hotel and a newly established brew pub operating within the hotel's premises.

The union argued the hotel contracted out its food and beverage operations.

The Board found that the relationship was a standard commercial landlord-tenant arrangement and that the brew pub was a separate and parallel business, not a continuation of the hotel's former operations.

The application was dismissed.