Wallace M. Kenny

The applicant union sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) decision which held that the OLRB had jurisdiction under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act to determine the date of a strike vote.

The union argued that the union had the exclusive right to set the date and that the OLRB's power to supervise the vote did not include setting the date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the OLRB's interpretation of its home statute was reasonable and that the plain meaning of the authority to supervise and manage a vote included the right to set the date.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitration award that allowed grievances filed by the respondent union.

The arbitrator had found that employees laid off for more than 35 weeks could concurrently elect to receive severance pay under the Employment Standards Act, 2000 and claim retirement benefits under the collective agreement.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding her interpretation of the collective agreement and treatment of arbitral jurisprudence to be intelligible, transparent, and justified.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought an order determining the effective date for the combination of several bargaining units at various retail stores of the responding party employer.

The Board had previously ordered the combination but reserved on the effective date.

The employer argued the combination should be effective only when every unit had entered into a collective agreement, while the union sought an immediate combination.

The Board found no reason to delay the combination, noting that deferring would not eliminate implementation complexities and that concluding terms for the units would be reached against the framework of an eventual combined unit.

The Board ordered the bargaining units combined effective immediately.

The applicant union sought to combine several bargaining units at various retail stores in Ontario under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act.

The responding employer argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to combine units that had already given notice to bargain and invoked statutory negotiation processes, and alternatively, that doing so would cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to combine the units regardless of the stage of collective bargaining.

The Board found that combining the units would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining and reduce fragmentation, and directed the combination of the units, while reserving on the effective date to allow the parties to address transitional issues.

The applicant union applied under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act to combine seven separate store bargaining units of the responding party department store into a single bargaining unit.

The parties had a history of centralized bargaining resulting in nearly identical collective agreements.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing it would cause serious labour relations problems and that the existing units were viable.

The Board found that combining the units would reduce fragmentation and facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems, given the centralized nature of the employer's operations and the parties' bargaining history.

The application was granted and the units were combined, with one member dissenting.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification of a part-time bargaining unit at the Toronto General Hospital.

The central issue was whether students employed during the school vacation period should be included in the part-time unit or excluded.

The Hospital argued for their exclusion, citing potential conflicts of interest and the viability of a separate student unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied its established policy of grouping part-time employees and summer students together to avoid undue fragmentation.

Finding no compelling evidence of irreconcilable conflict or that the students could form a viable separate unit, the Board ordered the inclusion of summer students in the part-time bargaining unit and issued a certificate.

The complainant was discharged by his employer for allegedly stealing company property.

He did not request the union to file a grievance at the time of his dismissal, despite the union president contacting him and advising him of the time limits.

Months later, the complainant requested a grievance form, which the union refused to provide because the time limits had expired.

The complainant alleged the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, as the complainant had initially declined union assistance and offered no explanation for his extreme delay in seeking to file a grievance.

The applicant union claimed that a former contractor transferred its business to the respondent when the respondent won a competitive tender for a food services contract at a correctional centre.

The union argued that the respondent was bound by the existing collective agreement as a successor employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the loss of a contract by tender to a competitor does not constitute a sale or transfer of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, relying on its previous decision in Metropolitan Parking Inc.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent school board violated the subcontracting provision of the provincial collective agreement by awarding a construction contract to a non-union general contractor.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the respondent was acting in its capacity as an owner letting a primary contract, rather than as an employer in the construction industry subcontracting out work.

Because the respondent did not itself subcontract out any work, its actions did not fall within the purview of the collective agreement's subcontracting restriction.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the respondent security company.

The respondent argued that all its employees were security guards and, under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, could not be included in a bargaining unit with non-guards.

The Board found that by-law enforcement officers and airport security guards did not protect the property of an employer and were therefore not guards within the meaning of section 11.

The Board determined that a bargaining unit excluding actual guards was appropriate and issued a certificate to the applicant.

The complainant, a foreman, filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation.

Following an incident where the complainant failed to call in an employee for overtime, the union executive organized a petition threatening an unlawful strike unless the complainant was removed from supervising jointers.

The employer conceded, resulting in the complainant losing overtime work.

The Board found the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and in bad faith by leading an action against its own member without investigating or giving him an opportunity to respond.

The Board ordered the employer to reinstate the complainant to standby duty and the union to compensate him for lost earnings.

The trade union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether certain cost and financial analysts were employees for the purposes of the Act.

The employer argued they were excluded under section 1(3)(b) because they were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board found that the analysts regularly used projected labour rate increases and costed alternative proposals for collective bargaining and business planning.

Because this information was confidential and its disclosure would prejudice the employer's labour relations, the Board concluded that all the disputed classifications were excluded from the bargaining unit.