D. E. Franks

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union raised preliminary objections that the application was untimely and that the applicant lacked status as an employee in the bargaining unit because he was not hired through the union hiring hall.

The Board dismissed the timeliness objection, accepting the applicant's earlier correspondence as a timely application despite technical defects.

The Board also dismissed the status objection, distinguishing previous case law because the applicant was a long-standing employee hired before the union obtained bargaining rights, not someone hired to avoid collective bargaining obligations.

The matter was directed to be listed for continuation.

The applicant employer referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union improperly refused to issue a work permit to a newly hired first-year apprentice.

The employer had hired the apprentice directly, relying on clause 2.05(a) of the collective agreement.

The Board, following a previous decision interpreting the same clause, found that the employer was entitled to hire the new apprentice since its shop ratio was in order.

Consequently, the Board directed the union to supply the apprentice with a regular work permit without delay.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The applicant submitted a photocopy of a petition signed by employees indicating they no longer wished to be represented by the union.

The Board considered whether to accept photocopy evidence, noting the inherent dangers, but concluded that in this case the photocopy was a true copy of the original and had been in the applicant's custody at all times.

The Board found that at least 45% of the employees in the bargaining unit had voluntarily signified their wish to terminate bargaining rights and directed a representation vote.

The applicant union was previously certified by the Board, but objecting employees were not given notice of the initial hearing.

The objecting employees argued this was a denial of natural justice and requested the proceedings be recommenced.

The Board held a second hearing to allow the objectors to make representations.

The Board found that the objectors' petition would not have affected the union's representative status even if given maximum weight.

As the objectors declined to call evidence or make substantive representations at the second hearing, the Board concluded any prejudice was cured and affirmed its decision to issue the certificates.

The complainant employer sought an interim order and a cease and desist order regarding a work assignment dispute between two unions over the off-loading of piping equipment.

The employer had assigned the work to the U.A. Local 463 after the Ironworkers Local 721 allegedly refused to perform work on the site.

The Ironworkers requested the Board to change the assignment.

The Board applied its established jurisprudence that an employer's assignment will be continued unless patently wrong.

Finding the assignment was made after representations from both unions, the Board directed the employer to continue assigning the work to U.A. Local 463 pending a final resolution.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union raised preliminary objections that the applicants lacked status because they were not employees in the bargaining unit (carpenters and carpenters' apprentices) at the time the application was made.

The Board found that on the date of the application, the applicants were employed as labourers, not carpenters.

The Board held that in construction industry termination cases, it only looks at the date of the making of the application to determine employee status.

Since the applicants were not employed in the bargaining unit on that date, they lacked status to bring the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification and challenged the status of the intervener union.

The intervener relied on a short-form agreement signed with the respondent employer before any employees were hired for a construction project.

The applicant argued this constituted improper employer support under the Labour Relations Act, rendering the agreement invalid.

The Board held that in the construction industry, signing a collective agreement to secure union members from a hiring hall before they commence work does not constitute improper employer support.

The Board found the agreement was a valid collective agreement, giving the intervener status, and directed the matter to continue.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that declined to enforce a collective agreement under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction and applied equitable principles it did not possess.

The Board denied the request, clarifying that it did not strike down the agreement using equitable relief, but rather refused to recognize a collective bargaining relationship because the agreement was obtained through an unlawful strike intended to bypass the Act's certification procedures.

One Board member dissented.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging the employer violated the collective agreement regarding commuting and travel allowances.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union was estopped from bringing the grievance due to a long-standing past practice of paying mileage rather than board allowance for Timmins area residents on local jobs.

The Board applied the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, finding that the union had accepted this practice during the renegotiation of the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of lifeguards employed by the respondent.

Both parties agreed to this proposed unit.

However, the Board noted a policy against the fragmentation of bargaining units, given the existing multiplicity of bargaining relationships between the respondent and various unions.

The Board rejected the agreed-upon unit and instead found that a 'tag end' unit, consisting of all employees not currently covered by existing collective agreements or certifications, was the appropriate bargaining unit.

A Labour Relations Officer was directed to inquire into the list of employees in this unit.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement regarding reporting pay.

Five carpenters worked five hours of pre-arranged overtime on a Sunday and were paid for five hours at double time.

The union argued that under Article 18, the employees were entitled to an additional four hours' pay because they worked one hour into the second half of the shift.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Article 18 applies only to regularly scheduled daily work and not to extraordinary overtime situations on weekends where there are no normal daily hours.

The complainant trade council sought an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act to restore a work assignment after the respondent employer cancelled a general contract and announced its intention to complete the remaining construction work using its own employees.

The Board declined to issue the interim order, finding that the statutory requirement of an imminent or existing strike 'by reason of the assignment of work' was not met, as there were no building trades employees left on the site to strike, and the picketing did not stop the employer's own employees from working.

The main complaint was referred for further processing.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement regarding emergency help, the hiring of first-year apprentices, and the lay-off of a job steward.

The Board dismissed the grievances relating to the emergency help and apprentices, finding that the union's telegram did not effectively end the emergency as it did not supply replacement workers, and that the employer was entitled to hire new first-year apprentices under the agreement.

However, the Board allowed the grievance regarding the job steward, finding that the employer violated the agreement by terminating the steward while there were still more than six men on the overall job site.

One Board member dissented on the dismissal of the first two issues.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote for employees of several construction companies.

The respondents and intervener raised complex issues, including whether the companies were related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act and whether the intervener already held bargaining rights.

Despite these complexities, the Board directed a pre-hearing vote to ensure employees could vote before the construction workforce dispersed.

To accommodate the unresolved issue of the intervener's bargaining rights, the Board ordered a unique two-ballot procedure, with all ballots segregated and sealed pending a future hearing.

The union applied for certification of employees at an abandoned gold mine currently undergoing dewatering and rebuilding.

The employer argued the application was premature due to a potential future build-up of employees.

The Board rejected this argument as the employer had no fixed plans for expansion.

Applying established Board policy for mining operations, the Board determined that the mine was in the 'development stage' and defined the appropriate bargaining unit accordingly.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were union members, the Board granted the certificate.

The complainant union filed a work assignment complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act after its members were removed from a job site.

The respondent union challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that no demand was ever made to the employer to assign work to members of a particular union.

The Board agreed, finding that the cancellation of the subcontractor's contract did not constitute a demand for work assignment within the meaning of section 91.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Following a finding of liability for breaching the hiring hall provisions of a collective agreement, the respondent employer challenged the quantum of damages.

The employer argued that the union was required to identify the specific members who lost work and prove that they had attempted to mitigate their damages.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected this argument, holding that the union's out-of-work list established a prima facie case for damages.

The Board found that the burden shifted to the employer to lead evidence of a failure to mitigate, which it had not done.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $6,885.50 in damages to the union on behalf of its unemployed members.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the working agreement relied upon by the union was signed under economic duress caused by an unlawful strike and picketing.

The Board found that the Building Trades Council had engaged in unlawful conduct by threatening and causing an unlawful strike to force the employer to sign the agreement.

Consequently, the Board declined to give effect to the working agreement, finding no valid collective bargaining relationship existed.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board considered whether the applicant, which was not included in the Minister's designation for the employee bargaining agency, could apply under section 144(5) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant is an affiliated bargaining agent and must apply under section 144(1).

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed the matter to be listed for continuation of hearing to deal with an employee petition.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit consisting solely of the Quality Control Department employees.

The respondent argued for a normal tag end unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that it was not appropriate to depart from its policy regarding tag end units and refused to carve out the Quality Control Department.

As the applicant had less than forty-five per cent membership in the appropriate tag end unit, the application for certification was dismissed.