D. F. Franks

The applicant, a full-time employee, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights for both full-time and part-time bargaining units.

The union argued the applicant lacked standing for the part-time unit and exercised managerial functions.

The Board held that employees in both units who signed the petition were considered applicants, giving standing for both units.

The Board also found the applicant was an assistant manager who did not exercise managerial functions.

Finding the petition voluntary, the Board directed a representation vote for both bargaining units.

The applicant union brought an application under section 63 and/or section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a lease with an option to purchase a closed brick and tile manufacturing facility constituted a sale of a business from the former owners to the new operators.

The Board found that no business was sold, as the facility had been closed for years, required significant modifications, and no goodwill or customer lists were transferred.

The section 63 application was dismissed, and consequently, a related termination application was also dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of glaziers and glaziers' apprentices.

The respondent employer argued that its three employees were neither certified journeymen nor registered apprentices, and thus could not be included in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the trade of glazier is a voluntary trade under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act, meaning uncertified persons can lawfully perform the work.

The Board held that in the construction industry, bargaining units are defined by the work performed rather than the individual qualifications of the employees.

Since the employees were performing glaziers' work, they were included in the bargaining unit, and the Board granted the certification.

The applicant, a working foreman, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights and circulated a petition signed by employees.

The Board first clarified a previous ruling, confirming that an agreement attempting to amend the bargaining unit in the provincial agreement is null and void under section 146(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

On the merits of the petition, the Board found that although the applicant was an employee in the bargaining unit and not excluded by section 1(3)(b), he was the sole representative of the employer on the job site for most of the time.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the employees would have perceived the applicant as a representative of the employer, rendering the petition involuntary.

The application for termination was dismissed.

A dissenting board member would have accepted the petition and directed a vote.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by paying incorrect benefit and training fund amounts for operating engineers on landscaping work.

The employer argued the collective agreement contained a patent ambiguity regarding the application of the 'nearest influencing representative agreement' (the Evans agreement) to the wage schedules.

The Board found a patent ambiguity existed because applying the Evans agreement classifications to the Operating Engineers Appendix wage schedules produced a meaningless result.

Relying on extrinsic evidence of past practice, the Board concluded the parties intended the Evans agreement to modify the Appendix as set out in a 1980 letter from the employer association.

The grievance was dismissed.