C. Ballentine

The respondent employer requested an adjournment of an unfair labour practice hearing to provide notice to 25 employees who continued to work during a lawful strike.

The employer argued that the union's requested remedial relief could affect the rights of these employees.

The Board denied the adjournment request, finding that the interests of the 25 employees were incidental to the main issues between the employer and the union, and that they were not entitled to status as parties or notice of the proceedings.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of surveyors in the construction industry.

The respondent employer and intervener union raised preliminary motions arguing the unit was inappropriate because the applicant already held bargaining rights for other employees under the provincial agreement, and because the agreement lacked a wage schedule for surveyors outside Sarnia.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the motions, finding that the provincial agreement and ministerial designation covered surveyors, and that section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act permits an affiliated bargaining agent to apply for certification for unrepresented employees who would be bound by the provincial agreement.

The applicant union alleged that James River-Marathon Ltd. (JRM) was a successor employer to American Can Canada Inc. regarding its woodlands operations under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

JRM had purchased a paper mill and timber limits from American Can, but simultaneously transferred the woodlands equipment and exclusive cutting rights to Pic River Forest Products Inc., a subsidiary of Buchanan Forest Products Limited.

The Board found that while JRM initially acquired the woodlands business, it immediately transferred it to Pic River in a transaction resembling a sale of a business rather than a mere subcontract.

Since JRM did not retain or operate the woodlands business itself, the application for a successor employer declaration against JRM was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by discharging nine employees for alleged misconduct during a strike and refusing to arbitrate their dismissals.

The misconduct involved an incident away from the plant where replacement workers were assaulted.

The Board found that some employees were discharged based on a mistaken belief of their involvement or merely for being present, which violated the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of five employees, some with back pay and others without, but upheld the discharges of those who actually participated in the physical assault.

The respondent requested the substitution of a Board Officer appointed to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of certain employees, alleging bias, and sought a hearing to establish this bias.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, noting that a Board Officer merely compiles a verbatim transcript of evidence and makes no findings of fact or law.

The Board found no indication that the alleged bias affected the transcript and directed the examination to continue.

The respondent employer requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider and revoke a certification decision made three years earlier.

The employer claimed it had not received proper notice and had returned the Board's forms unread, asking for an explanation.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration without a hearing, finding that the employer had been properly served, had failed to read the clear instructions on the forms, and was the author of its own misfortune.

The Board held that the employer had not acted with due diligence and had not been denied natural justice.

The complainant, a former zone affiliate of the respondent employer bargaining agency, alleged that the respondent breached its duty of fair representation under section 151(2) of the Labour Relations Act by excluding it from the Mechanical Trade Bargaining Committee (MTBC).

The complainant had withdrawn from full membership due to concerns over the involvement of non-union employers but sought continued participation in labour relations matters.

The Board found that the respondent acted arbitrarily by failing to properly consult with the complainant regarding negotiations.

The Board ordered the respondent to grant the complainant observer status at MTBC meetings, though it declined to order full voting rights.

The complainant, an owner-operator of a crane, alleged that the respondent union breached the Labour Relations Act by negotiating a subcontracting clause that required owner-operators to have an agreement with the union, and then refusing to sign such an agreement with him.

This refusal effectively prevented him from working on unionized construction sites.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that owner-operators were not employees within the meaning of the provincial collective agreement, and therefore the union owed them no duty of fair representation under section 60 or 136(1).

The Board also found no violation of section 60a regarding hiring hall referrals, nor any unlawful intimidation or coercion under section 61.

The complainant, a laid-off employee, filed a complaint alleging the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union's business agent failed to inform the complainant that his grievance regarding a layoff out of seniority had been denied by the employer, and knowingly misrepresented to the complainant and the union membership that the grievance was still being processed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the business agent's conduct was arbitrary and in bad faith, depriving the complainant of the opportunity to pursue his grievance to arbitration.

The Board declared that the union breached the Act and directed the parties to agree on compensation.

The applicant applied for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent trade union.

The collective agreement was for a term of two years, expiring on September 30, 1980.

The application was filed on July 8, 1980, which was prior to the commencement of the last two months of the agreement's operation.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing pursuant to Rule 46 of the Rules of Procedure, as it was untimely under section 49(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union applied under sections 2 and 4 of The Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act following the transfer of two sewage treatment plants from the Crown to the City of Timmins.

The applicant, which represented the City's outside workers, argued that the transferred employees should be accreted to its existing bargaining unit.

The Board found that there was no intermingling between the transferred employees and the City's existing employees.

Emphasizing that the purpose of the successor rights legislation is to preserve rather than extinguish bargaining rights, the Board declined to alter the bargaining structure.

The Board declared the City a successor employer and affirmed that the intervener union continued to represent the transferred employees.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of food service employees.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the unit.

The union requested a municipal description, while the employer requested a description limited to the specific client location (General Motors plants).

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that, consistent with its normal practice where an employer has only one location in a municipality, the bargaining unit should be defined by reference to the municipality to protect the stability of bargaining rights.

A dissenting member would have restricted the unit to the client location.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing it was not bound by any collective agreement with the applicant.

The Board found that in November 1974, the respondent's site supervisor signed a collective agreement with the union.

Although the supervisor lacked actual authority to bind the respondent, he had apparent authority.

Furthermore, the respondent's subsequent conduct over three years—hiring union carpenters, paying union wages, and making required remittances—constituted ratification of the agreement.

The Board concluded the respondent was bound by the provincial collective agreement and remained seized of the grievance.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred when the respondent acquired a lease for a retail food store previously operated by Dominion Stores Limited.

The premises had been closed and vacant for over 11 months before the respondent occupied them.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the transfer of the lease constituted a 'sale' within the extended meaning of the Act, it did not amount to a continuation of Dominion's business.

As there was no continuation of the predecessor's business, the application for successor rights was dismissed.