Wallace Kenny

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding a certification vote for part-time employees at Ontario community colleges.

The Board had to interpret the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 2008 to determine which employees would be 'substantially effected' by the vote and whether the employee group was 'substantially representative' given the fluctuating workforce.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Board's interpretation of its home statute and application of labour relations principles was reasonable and entitled to deference.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of approximately 19 part-time employees working at the Acadian Court Restaurant within a Hudsons Bay Company store.

The employer argued the unit was inappropriate as it would carve out one department from at least 14 in the store, leading to undue fragmentation.

The Board found that the restaurant was functionally integrated with the rest of the store and that the employees shared similar working conditions and corporate policies with other store employees.

Applying its policy against departmental units to avoid serious labour relations problems, the Board held the proposed unit was not appropriate and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Zellers was bound by the collective agreement between the union and Woolworth, arguing that a sale of a business had occurred under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

Woolworth had terminated its lease in a shopping mall, and the landlord subsequently negotiated a new lease with Zellers.

Zellers completely renovated the premises and hired its own employees, with only five former Woolworth employees being hired through a standard application process.

The Board applied an instrumental analysis and found that no operational entity or constituent components of Woolworth's business had passed to Zellers, other than the physical location.

The application was dismissed as no sale of a business took place.

The applicant union sought an interim order declaring it the successor union and exclusive bargaining agent for employees in over 200 pending successor rights applications.

The applications arose from a massive inter-union dispute following the purported merger of various Ontario locals of the RWDSU with the Steelworkers, which was contested by the RWDSU International and the UFCW.

The dispute caused widespread confusion and collective bargaining paralysis, prompting employers and the Minister of Labour to seek clarification on which union to deal with.

The Board granted the interim order, declaring the Steelworkers as the interim exclusive bargaining agent to preserve orderly labour relations and allow the collective bargaining process to function until the main applications are resolved.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of the respondent food service company in Chatham.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the bargaining unit: the union sought a municipal-wide unit, while the employer argued for a client-specific unit limited to its operation at Eaton Yale.

The Board found that the employer's operations and terms of employment varied significantly depending on the client's needs, and that client-specific units were the norm in the non-vending food service industry.

The Board concluded that a municipal-wide unit would place undue strain on collective bargaining and determined that client-specific units were appropriate.

Certificates were issued for full-time and part-time units at the Eaton Yale location.

The employer applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of the employment status of eleven individuals, arguing they should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) because they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board reviewed the duties and responsibilities of each individual, including benefits clerks, human resources assistants, payroll clerks, and occupational health nurses.

The Board concluded that only the Benefits Clerk was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations and should be excluded.

The remaining ten individuals were found to be employees under the Act and properly included in the bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of part-time employees and students at the respondent hospital.

The parties agreed on the unit description except for the inclusion of students employed during the school vacation period.

The respondent argued that students lacked a community of interest or, alternatively, that a representation vote should be deferred until the summer when students were employed.

The Board declined to defer the vote based on the build-up principle and granted interim certification for the agreed-upon unit, excluding students pending a final determination of the bargaining unit composition.

The Board issued procedural directions for the exchange of pleadings and documents to resolve the outstanding issue.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer breached section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to bargain in good faith for a first collective agreement at its Cambridge branch.

The employer insisted on terms similar to an existing agreement at another branch, which largely mirrored its corporate-wide policies for non-unionized employees, and refused to make significant concessions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, holding that the employer's conduct amounted to lawful hard bargaining in pursuit of its own self-interest and legitimate business objectives, rather than a refusal to recognize the union or conclude an agreement.