5 total
Related employer declaration denied where union sought tactical advantage rather than preservation of bargaining rights.
The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) applied for a declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that West Lincoln Memorial Hospital and Deer Park Villa constitute a single employer.
ONA sought to have the Hospital's collective agreement apply to nurses at the Villa to avoid an 'ability to pay' argument in an upcoming interest arbitration.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that while the entities were under common control, there was no erosion of bargaining rights or other mischief that subsection 1(4) was designed to remedy.
The Board held that the provision should not be used merely to enhance bargaining rights or secure a tactical advantage in arbitration.
Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; layoff decision was made for business reasons after bargaining concluded.
The complainant union alleged that the employer committed unfair labour practices, breached the statutory freeze, and failed to bargain in good faith when it laid off all registered nurses at its London retirement lodge shortly after concluding first collective agreements.
The employer maintained the layoffs were part of a broader, division-wide reorganization prompted by financial concerns and a shift to a 'wellness concept' for residents.
The Board found no anti-union animus or unlawful lockout, accepting that the decision was driven by legitimate business reasons.
The Board also concluded that the reorganization decision was finalized after the collective agreements had been ratified, meaning the statutory freeze and the duty to bargain in good faith had already expired.
The complaint was dismissed.
Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; hospital's use of scheduling forms did not constitute direct dealing.
The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital breached the Labour Relations Act by dealing directly with employees.
The hospital had asked certain nurses to sign forms agreeing to work scheduled shifts at their regular rate of pay.
The Board found that the forms did not alter any working conditions or terms of employment established by an interest arbitration award.
There was no evidence that the hospital refused to recognize the union, interfered with employee rights, or discriminated against any employee.
Related employer declaration denied due to union's unreasonable delay in asserting bargaining rights.
The applicant unions sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Ferro Structural Steel (Toronto) Limited (F.S.S.) and Ferro Erectors (Toronto) Limited (F.E.) constituted one employer, thereby binding F.S.S. to a province-wide collective agreement.
While the Board found the companies were under common control and direction, it declined to exercise its discretion to grant the declaration.
The Board held that the union knew or ought to have known for many years that F.S.S. was not bound by the agreement and was sub-contracting to non-union erectors, yet failed to act with sufficient dispatch to protect its bargaining rights.
Representation vote set aside and new vote ordered due to employer acting as his own scrutineer.
The applicant union sought certification under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively a new representation vote, following a lost vote.
The union alleged employer misconduct, including a physical altercation and threats, and irregularities in the vote's conduct, notably the employer acting as his own scrutineer.
The Board found the employer's conduct did not warrant automatic certification under section 7a.
However, the Board set aside the representation vote and ordered a new one, concluding that the employer's presence as a scrutineer, combined with previous threats and the seating arrangements during the vote, made it unlikely that the ballot accurately reflected the employees' true wishes.
