Termination application granted; Board cannot revisit 40% threshold and ULP complaint dismissed for lacking prima facie case.
The applicants filed a termination application to displace the Teamsters as their bargaining agent.
A representation vote was held, and the majority voted against the Teamsters.
The Teamsters alleged that the applicants did not meet the 40% threshold for the application and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging intimidation and coercion by the Labourers union, which supported the applicants.
The Board held that it could not revisit the 40% threshold issue, as it had already been determined without a hearing pursuant to s. 63(8) of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board also dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the allegations did not establish a prima facie case of intimidation or coercion that would vitiate the representation vote.
The termination application was granted.
Board condones late filing of union's unfair labour practice complaint and declines to impose certification bar.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging intimidation of employees prior to a representation vote, but failed to file a detailed statement of representations within the five-day period required by the Board's rules.
The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint was untimely, failed to disclose a prima facie case, and that a bar should be imposed on the union's certification application due to a prior withdrawal.
The Board condoned the late filing, finding the balance of convenience favoured the union and the employer suffered no significant prejudice.
The Board also found the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and declined to impose a bar, as the prior withdrawal was to correct an employee estimate and not an abuse of process.
Ballot box in representation vote ordered sealed due to dispute over voters' independent contractor status.
The employer sought reconsideration of a Board decision ordering that ballots cast in a representation vote be counted rather than sealed.
The employer argued that under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board must seal the ballot box upon receiving a notice of disagreement regarding the union's estimate of employees in the bargaining unit.
The Board interpreted section 8.1 pragmatically, holding that a reflexive sealing is not required unless there is a material difference serving a labour relations purpose.
However, because the employer clarified that the individual status of each eligible voter was in dispute (independent versus dependent contractors), the Board exercised its discretion to order the ballot box sealed and the ballots segregated.
Grievance over work assignment adjourned sine die to allow resolution by the Canadian Plan.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by assigning certain engraving machine work to the intervenor union and by holding a mark-up meeting.
The employer and intervenor raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievance was untimely, was actually a jurisdictional dispute, and should be deferred to the Canadian Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes.
The Board struck out the portion of the grievance regarding the mark-up meeting as untimely, but found the work assignment portion was an ongoing grievance.
The Board concluded the substance of the grievance was a jurisdictional dispute and adjourned the application sine die to allow the matter to be resolved by the Plan, as a reference had already been made to it.
Reconsideration of termination application dismissal denied; closed period remains until no-board report issues.
The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing a termination application as untimely under subsection 67(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The applicant argued that because no conciliation board or mediator had been appointed and no no-board report had been issued, the closed period expired 12 months after the appointment of a conciliation officer.
The Board rejected this interpretation, holding that subsection 67(2) requires both the passage of 12 months and the occurrence of either the appointment of a conciliation board or the issuance of a no-board report before the open period revives.
The reconsideration request was dismissed.