Stephen Krashinsky

In a grievance arbitration concerning a disciplinary discharge, the Association asserted that the complainant suffered from a mental health disability that mitigated the culpable conduct.

The employer sought an order for the production of the complainant's medical records prior to the continuation of the hearing.

The Association resisted, arguing that production should be delayed until after the employer presented its case.

The Grievance Settlement Board granted the employer's request, ordering the production of specific medical records and clinical notes, finding that the complainant's health had already been put in issue and that early disclosure would serve both parties.

The union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the grievor's discharge for alleged sexual harassment was a nullity because the employer violated the collective agreement's sunset clause.

The employer's investigator had considered a 1992 allegation of inappropriate comments for which the grievor was never disciplined.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the motion, finding that the sunset clause only applies to formal letters of reprimand, suspensions, or other sanctions placed on a personnel file.

Since the 1992 incident resulted in no discipline, the sunset clause did not apply to bar its consideration, though the union remained free to challenge the fairness of relying on it on other grounds.

The Canadian Health Care Workers (CHCW) filed a certification application to displace the incumbent union, SEIU, for service employees at Parkwood Hospital and McCormick Home.

Shortly after, SEIU filed an application under the newly enacted Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act (Bill 136), arguing that an ongoing restructuring transferring Parkwood to St. Joseph's Health Centre barred the certification application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that Bill 136 did not automatically bar the certification application and declined to exercise its discretion to apply Bill 136 retroactively to halt the proceeding.

The Board directed that the representation ballots be counted, treating the employees at the two facilities as separate voting constituencies.

The union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 43 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A termination application was also pending.

At the hearing, the employer offered to sign the union's proposed collective agreement and moved to dismiss the first contract application.

The union resisted, arguing the employer's offer was a tactical move to allow the termination application to proceed.

The majority of the Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the statutory preconditions for a first contract application were met and that the issue of whether collective bargaining had been unsuccessful required a full evidentiary hearing.

A dissenting Board member would have dismissed the application, finding that the employer's acceptance of the union's offer created a binding contract.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification and section 96 unfair labour practice complaints against the employer and the incumbent union.

At the outset of the hearing, the incumbent union and the employer brought motions to dismiss the applications.

The Board granted the motions, finding that the allegations of improper conduct during the representation vote campaign, even if true, would not support a finding of a breach of the Act or undermine the vote results.

The Board also noted the applicant failed to raise its concerns prior to the counting of the ballots.

The applications and complaints were dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union.

The issue was whether the application was timely.

The parties were subject to the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA) and an interest arbitration board had issued an award that remitted the issue of lay-off and recall language back to the parties for negotiation.

The Board held that the interest arbitration award was not a final decision on all matters in dispute, and therefore the 90-day extension period under s. 10(12) of the HLDAA had not yet commenced.

Consequently, the application for certification was premature and untimely, and was dismissed.

In an ongoing application for certification, the employer requested a representation vote under section 8(3) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the union submitted fraudulent membership cards and prevented appropriate communication with employees.

The union brought a motion to restrict the inquiry into the scope of the bargaining unit, arguing the employer was bound by an agreement from a prior certification application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the union's motion, finding no basis for res judicata or issue estoppel.

The Board also denied the employer's request for a vote, concluding that the allegations of fraud lacked particularity and that the union had achieved the requisite 55% support for automatic certification.

The Board revoked the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer and directed a hearing to resolve the remaining bargaining unit configuration issues.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting editorial employees from wearing union buttons while meeting with the public on company business.

The Board found that wearing union buttons to support collective bargaining objectives is a lawful union activity protected by the Act.

The Board concluded that the employer's rule was inconsistently applied and motivated, at least in part, by an anti-union animus, thereby violating sections 65 and 67 of the Act.

A declaration of the violation was issued, though no further remedy was ordered.

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 employer applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether a librarian exercised managerial functions and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board used this case to alter its policy regarding the scope of duties and responsibilities examinations, deciding it would no longer automatically restrict such inquiries to 'changes' in duties but would permit full examinations where a question as to status arises.

On the merits, the majority found that the librarian exercised effective control over the library, including making effective recommendations on automation, staffing, and hours, and had supervisory conflicts with bargaining unit staff.

The Board concluded she exercised managerial functions within the meaning of section 1(3)(b) and granted the application.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to disclose the individual salaries of bargaining unit employees during collective bargaining.

The employer argued the information was confidential and that the union had waived its right to the information through past bargaining practices.

The Board held that a trade union is entitled to the wage rates of employees in the bargaining unit it represents, as this information is necessary to fulfill its role as exclusive bargaining agent.

The Board found the employer breached section 15 and directed it to provide the requested salary information.

During an application for certification, the applicant union brought a motion to exclude evidence regarding how it obtained membership evidence.

The union alleged the employer obtained this information by violating the Labour Relations Act and argued for an exclusionary rule similar to section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the motion, holding that the Board is not a criminal court and that relevant evidence is admissible regardless of how it was obtained, following the common law rule in Wray.

The applicant union applied for certification and won a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board required the applicant to prove its status as a trade union because its name differed slightly from the entity previously found to be a trade union, due to a merger of its parent international unions.

The majority of the Board held that the applicant could not rely on section 105 of the Labour Relations Act for prima facie proof of status because its name was not identical to the previously recognized entity.

However, upon reviewing the evidence, the Board found that despite the merger and the resulting change in its legal name, the applicant continued to operate with the same constitution, officers, and structure, and was therefore the same organization.

The Board concluded the applicant was a trade union within the meaning of the Act and issued an interim certificate pending the resolution of the bargaining unit composition.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 79(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer sent an employee home for refusing to paint her new replacement vehicle black.

During an ongoing certification proceeding, the parties had previously stipulated as a fact that the employer's policy of requiring black cars was no longer in effect and was merely encouraged.

The majority of the Board held that this stipulated fact constituted an agreed term or condition of employment that could not be altered without the union's consent during the statutory freeze period.

The Board directed that the employee be reinstated with full compensation.

The Vice-Chairman dissented, finding that the stipulation was merely a description of facts and did not create a new term or condition of employment.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Although the union met the statutory requirements for automatic certification, the respondent employer requested a representation vote be delayed due to a projected build-up in its workforce.

The Board applied the criteria for projected build-ups and found that the current employees were sufficiently representative of the expected ongoing workforce, excluding temporary seasonal hires.

The Board declined to direct a representation vote and granted automatic certification.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's office, clerical, and technical employees.

A group of objecting technical employees argued they had a separate community of interest and should be excluded from the unit.

The Board applied its long-standing practice of grouping technical employees with office and clerical staff to avoid undue fragmentation, finding no unique circumstances to justify a departure.

The Board also declined the respondent's request to direct a representation vote under section 7(2) of the Act, holding that the union's support must be assessed across the entire appropriate bargaining unit, not just among the objecting technical employees.

The technical employees were included in the unit.

The complainant union filed a work assignment complaint regarding electrical installation work.

The respondent employer and intervening unions challenged the Board's jurisdiction under section 91(14) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing the collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board.

The complainant argued the respondent was not bound by the provincial agreement.

The respondent requested a related employer declaration under section 1(4) to be declared a single employer with its unionized subsidiary.

The Board found the preconditions for section 1(4) were met and exercised its discretion to make the declaration, binding the respondent to the provincial agreement.

Consequently, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint under section 91(14) and dismissed it.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision granting him a religious exemption from paying union dues, seeking to have the exemption apply retroactively to the date of his application.

The Board found that section 47(1) of the Labour Relations Act does not limit the scope of its orders regarding commencement dates.

Since the union and employer had notice of the application and potential liability from the outset, the Board amended its order to apply from the application date and directed the union to remit the dues collected during that period to the agreed-upon charity.

The respondent applied for reconsideration of a Board decision that denied an adjournment and found it had illegally terminated four employees.

The respondent argued the adjournment should have been granted due to a death in the owner's family, and that the owner failed to attend the hearing due to a misunderstanding of his solicitor's advice.

The Board found the owner had continued to work despite the bereavement and had intentionally misrepresented facts.

The Board also found the owner had ignored his solicitor's advice to attend the hearing.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.