E.N. Davis

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a majority decision dismissing its application for a declaration of a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued that the Board erred in its interpretation of a sale and failed to recognize that a third party acted as an intermediary to transfer the business free of bargaining rights.

The Board found that the third party acted at arm's length in purchasing the assets from the receiver and reselling them to the respondent.

As the request for reconsideration did not rely on new evidence or substantively different arguments, the request was dismissed.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the collective agreement had expired and the applicant was no longer a party to it.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the grievance was founded on an incident that occurred during the existence of the collective agreement and was filed within the mandatory time limits.

The Board held that the right to refer the grievance to arbitration crystallized during the term of the agreement, and the matter was referred to the Registrar for listing for a further hearing.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred between Universal Sections Limited and U S L Industries Inc. Universal had gone into receivership and its physical assets were sold by tender to Danbury Sales, which subsequently sold them to U S L Industries Inc. The Board found that Danbury purchased only a bundle of discrete assets and did not acquire the business as a going concern.

Consequently, there was no sale of a business from Universal to Danbury, and thus no sale to U S L Industries Inc. The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant employer sought to alter the descriptions of conflicting bargaining units in collective agreements with two different unions under section 91(18) of the Labour Relations Act.

One union argued the Board should defer to arbitration.

The Board held that section 91(18) is a separate charging section designed to resolve representational disputes arising from conflicting bargaining unit descriptions in industrial-type collective agreements.

The Board declined to defer to arbitration because an arbitration board could not provide the requested relief of altering the bargaining unit descriptions, and decided to entertain the application.

The applicant employer sought a declaration and cease and desist order against the respondent union and its officials for calling an unlawful strike.

The union had directed employees to refuse all overtime assignments, including those within statutory maximums and those covered by an Employment Standards Act permit, in support of a lawful strike at a sister corporation.

The Board found that the concerted refusal of overtime constituted an unlawful strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board rejected the union's argument that the Employment Standards Act conferred a right to engage in such concerted activity, holding that the ESA does not override the LRA's prohibition on unlawful strikes.