T. F. Stone

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) alleged that a rationalization plan transferring obstetrics and paediatrics services from St. Mary's General Hospital to Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital constituted a 'sale of a business' under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that a sale of part of St. Mary's business had occurred and that the employees were intermingled.

However, because ONA represented only a small percentage of the resulting 'all nurses' bargaining unit at Kitchener-Waterloo, the Board declined to order a representation vote and declared that ONA no longer held bargaining rights.

The Board also found that Kitchener-Waterloo breached section 66 of the Act by treating St. Mary's nurses as new hires rather than offering them preferential transfer rights, doing so specifically to avoid successor rights obligations.

The Ontario Nurses' Association filed applications under sections 1(4) and 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act, along with an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89, against Carecor Health Services Inc. and numerous hospitals.

The union alleged that the hospitals formed Carecor to provide a pool of agency nurses to avoid their collective agreement obligations.

The Board dismissed the allegations under sections 50 and 66 for failing to disclose a prima facie case, but allowed the section 64 complaint to proceed.

The Board directed the union to provide particulars of its allegations and ordered that the section 1(4) application and the remaining section 89 complaint be heard together.

The section 106(2) application was adjourned pending the disposition of the other matters.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

At the hearing, the union sought leave to file a supplementary statement containing new material facts, which the respondent opposed.

The Board denied leave, citing the strict time limits and requirements of Practice Note 18.

The union also moved for a direction based solely on the pleadings and the existence of a lengthy strike, which the Board also denied, noting that evidence was required to establish the statutory prerequisites.

Following these rulings, the union sought leave to withdraw its application, and the Board terminated the matter.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze period under section 79(2) and the prohibition against union interference under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by laying off several employees shortly after an application for certification was filed.

The Board found that the layoffs of sales staff and receiving employees were part of a pre-existing program or a continuation of business as usual, and thus did not violate the freeze.

However, the layoffs of cleaning and alterations staff, which resulted from contracting out and centralization decisions made after the freeze began, constituted an unlawful alteration of employee privileges.

The section 64 complaint was dismissed as the layoffs were motivated by bona fide business reasons.

The applicant union sought certification for full-time and part-time bargaining units at the respondent's retail store.

The employer and union agreed on the bargaining unit descriptions.

A group of employee objectors, representing commission salesmen, argued they should be excluded from the unit because they did not share a community of interest and did not wish to be represented by a union, citing the Charter of Rights freedom of association.

The Board held that excluding the salesmen would cause undue fragmentation and that the Charter did not require altering the appropriate bargaining unit.

The Board also dismissed unproven allegations of union misconduct during the organizing campaign.

As the union demonstrated membership support of over 55%, the Board granted certification without a vote.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by settling his grievance over strike-related discipline without his consent.

The union had consolidated 23 similar grievances for expedited arbitration and retained legal counsel.

After several days of hearing, union counsel negotiated a settlement that reduced the discipline for many employees and secured a commitment from the employer regarding the complainant's discipline.

The Board found that the union's decision to settle was based on a thorough understanding of the evidence and the merits of the case, and was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer committed an unfair labour practice by withholding union dues deducted from employees' wages following an illegal strike.

The employer argued its actions were permitted under the collective agreement as a 'cancellation of dues deduction' penalty.

The Board found that continuing to deduct dues but holding them in escrow did not constitute a cancellation of dues deduction.

The Board held that the employer's unilateral impounding of union dues interfered with the administration of the trade union, violating section 56 of the Labour Relations Act, and ordered the employer to remit the withheld dues with interest.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated section 56 of the Labour Relations Act by withholding union dues following an illegal strike.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the Board should defer to a board of arbitration already established to hear a related grievance, and that the union delayed in filing the complaint.

The Board declined to defer to arbitration, finding the complaint extended beyond the interpretation of the collective agreement and involved allegations of interference with the union's capacity to act as bargaining agent.

The Board also dismissed the delay objection and directed the matter to proceed on the merits.

The applicant, Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), applied for a declaration under section 54 of the Labour Relations Act that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor, the Staff Association of the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, following a merger or transfer of jurisdiction.

The employer questioned the adequacy of the notice for the meetings where the vote was held.

The Board found that the notice and voting procedures complied with the predecessor's constitution and by-laws, and that reasonable notice of the meeting's contents was provided to the membership.

The Board granted the application and declared CUPE the successor union.