A. Haward

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The intervenor union sought to intervene six months after the application date, alleging its collective agreement covered the work.

The Board denied the intervention due to delay, noting the application was posted at the jobsite.

The employer also raised the intervenor's collective agreement as a bar to the application six months late.

Despite the applicant's argument that the delay prejudiced its ability to reapply during the open period, the Board allowed the employer to raise the collective agreement bar, finding it could not ignore an existing agreement that might cover the classifications of work performed.

The matter was deferred for further submissions on whether the specific work fell within the agreement's classifications.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was ordered and held, but the ballot box was sealed pending the resolution of a related matter (Board File No. 3674-99-R).

Following the issuance of a decision in the related matter, and with the employer's agreement despite a section 8.1 notice, the Board directed that the ballots be counted.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to arrange for the counting of the ballots.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

A representation vote was held, but the ballot box was sealed due to a section 8.1 objection by the responding party.

The Board subsequently determined that the applicant had the requisite 40% membership support.

Noting an inordinate number of segregated ballots caused by the intervenor's challenges, the Board directed that the ballots be counted.

The Board also ordered the parties to meet with a Labour Relations Specialist, requiring the intervenor to justify its challenges and the responding party to produce employee records.

The applicants sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party trade union.

A representation vote was held, and more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union.

As no party filed representations, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The applicant filed a grievance referral against the responding party.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

At a consultation concerning a work assignment application under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the responding party EPSCA requested an adjournment because it and its counsel had not been provided with notice.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding the notice deficient and noting that the failure to provide adequate notice prevented EPSCA from participating effectively.

The Registrar was directed to reschedule the consultation.

In an application for certification, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that the ballots cast in a representation vote be counted.

The ballot box had previously been sealed pending the resolution of a related file.

Following the issuance of a decision in that related matter, the Board ordered the Registrar to arrange for the counting of the ballots.

The applicant filed a grievance against the responding party.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

In a work assignment dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the responding union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Board should not deal with the issue of which sector of the construction industry the work fell into because it was not raised in a timely manner.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant union had raised the sector issue squarely in its reply submissions over four weeks prior to the consultation, providing ample warning.

The Board adjourned the consultation to allow notice to be given to other interested parties and set a schedule for further submissions and a hearing.

The applicant referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party requested that the Board transfer its Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate and the associated filing fee from a previously withdrawn file to the current file, as both files concerned the same grievance.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no authority in the Act or the Board's Rules of Procedure to permit the transfer of a Notice and filing fee between applications.

The responding party was directed to comply with the statutory and procedural requirements for the new application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued an amendment to its decision dated March 27, 2000, to correct a typographical error in the scheduled hearing dates.

The dates were amended from October 28 and 24, 2000, to October 23 and 24, 2000.

The applicant union referred two grievances to arbitration and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer and two individuals, alleging violations of the collective agreement's manning provisions and witness intimidation.

The parties reached a Memorandum of Settlement to fully resolve the matters without a hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement, which included declarations of collective agreement and statutory violations, cease and desist orders, and posting requirements.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

At the hearing, the Board made several preliminary rulings.

It permitted the responding party to file its response and pay its hearing fee late due to confusion regarding a prior meeting.

The Board also dismissed the responding party's objection that the grievances could not be referred under section 133 because they related to non-construction employees, relying on established jurisprudence.

Finally, the Board granted an adjournment to allow the union to prepare a reply to objections raised in the newly filed response, and set a timetable for the exchange of particulars.

The responding party applied for reconsideration of a default decision finding it liable for a construction industry grievance.

The responding party claimed it did not file a Notice of Intent to Defend (Form A-87) because its fax machine received but failed to print the application.

The Board applied the four-part test from Weinmann Electric Limited and found the responding party failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the default, as the risk of equipment failure falls on the party maintaining it.

The Board also found the responding party's defence on the merits was weak.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed, and the matter was directed to a hearing to quantify damages.

The applicant applied to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

At the hearing, the union withdrew its allegations under section 63(16).

The Board granted the application and terminated the union's bargaining rights based on the results of a representation vote.

The Board remained seized to determine the applicant's request for costs and set a schedule for written submissions.

The parties were unable to agree on continuation dates for the hearing.

The Board determined that two further dates were required to complete the matter.

The Board declined to schedule the dates peremptorily in August due to vacation conflicts and instead scheduled the continuation for October 2000.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further applications for certification by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the consent adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

Following an unfair labour practice complaint, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to a second vote, but the union reserved the right to challenge the eligibility of two employees hired after the application date on the basis that they were not employed in the 'representative period'.

The Board held that the term 'representative period' is a term of art referable to the application date.

Consequently, the two challenged employees were not entitled to vote in the second representation vote.

The intervenor, Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, filed an intervention raising issues similar to another recent case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board cancelled the scheduled representation vote to allow the applicant and responding party time to address the issues raised in the intervention, and set a schedule for written submissions.