F. B. Reaume

The applicant, Carpenters Local 18, filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the employer's assignment of certain formwork to a composite crew of carpenters and labourers.

The responding parties, Rili Construction Weston Ltd. and Labourers Local 837, defended the assignment.

The Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors, noting that members of both unions had the skill and ability to perform the work, and that the employer's practice and area practice supported the use of a composite crew in the ICI sector.

The Board concluded that the employer's assignment was reasonable and made in good faith, and dismissed the complaint.

The Labourers' union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of tending work for carpenters erecting and dismantling scaffolding.

The employer, Doug Chalmers Construction Limited, argued it should have discretion to assign the work based on economy and efficiency.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors, finding that employer and area practice, along with a prior trade agreement, favoured the Labourers' claim.

The Board ordered the employer to assign at least one construction labourer to tend carpenters on all scaffolding jobs in issue, while retaining discretion to assign additional labourers as needed.

One Board member dissented, emphasizing the employer's right to assign work based on cost and efficiency.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision that declared a sale of business had occurred.

The applicant argued that the Board erred by failing to set out the parties' arguments and the case law in its decision.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, finding that it had provided a seven-page decision setting out the relevant facts and applying the law, which more than met its obligations under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to provide adequate reasons.

The Board noted that in cases where the law is settled and outcomes apparent, it will err on the side of brevity to fulfill its goal of timely decision-making.

The employer, Ecodyne Limited, filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of tending and clean-up work on a cooling tower erection project in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The employer had assigned the work to members of the Carpenters' union, but the Labourers' union claimed the work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors, finding that while economy and efficiency favoured the employer's preference for the Carpenters, the core work jurisdiction in the collective agreement and the local area practice favoured the Labourers.

The Board declared that the work should have been assigned to the Labourers.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that economy and efficiency should prevail.

The applicant union filed a construction grievance seeking damages for the respondent employer's failure to assign plaster removal work to its members, following a successful jurisdictional dispute.

The employer argued that the collective agreement precluded damages and that the assignment was not unreasonable.

The Board found that while the collective agreement did not expressly preclude damages in this specific scenario, damages for an incorrect work assignment should only be awarded if the employer acted unreasonably.

Applying the Robertson Yates test, the Board concluded that the employer's assignment of the work to the painters was not unreasonable given the circumstances, including the urgency of the project and the ancillary nature of the work.

The application for damages was dismissed.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding her authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The union sought conciliation for a bargaining unit covering all sectors except the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector.

The employer objected, arguing it had no employees in the residential sector and had only ever worked in the ICI and road/bridge sectors.

The Board advised the Minister that she has the authority to appoint the conciliation officer.

The Board noted that in the construction industry, a union does not abandon its bargaining rights merely because the employer is inactive in certain sectors, and the 'spent certificate' theory does not apply to extinguish rights in sectors where the employer has no employees.

The applicant employers' organization filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding trade unions bargained in bad faith by pressing to impasse a demand that the applicant's members contribute to an industry fund operated by a rival employers' organization.

The Board found that the trade unions' insistence on this provision as a condition to end a strike interfered with the administration of the applicant and provided improper support to the rival organization, contrary to section 71 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board concluded that pressing this demand to impasse constituted a failure to bargain in good faith under section 17.

The applicant trade union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the responding employer violated the provincial collective agreement.

The employer argued the union had abandoned its bargaining rights obtained through a 1963 voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board found that the employer failed to rebut the presumption against abandonment, noting the employer's agreement that the union never intended to abandon its rights.

The Board declared the employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A representation vote was held, but the ballots were segregated due to disputes over voter eligibility.

The employer argued that four employees who were not at work on the application date because they took 'lieu time' should be eligible to vote, urging the Board to depart from its established 'date of application' policy.

The Board reviewed its historical approach and the purposes of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, concluding that the transient nature of the construction industry still justified restricting voter eligibility to those at work on the application date.

The Board also determined that a disputed individual was hired prior to the application date and was therefore an eligible voter.

A dissenting Board member would have allowed the four employees to vote.

The applicant union filed a certification application and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding party employer.

The employer's president requested an adjournment on medical grounds, which the Board denied, finding the medical evidence of stress and anxiety insufficient to justify delaying the peremptory hearing.

On the merits, the Board found that the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by demanding employees sign anti-union statements, threatening to close the business, and laying off union supporters.

Concluding that a representation vote would not reflect the employees' true wishes and that no other remedy was sufficient, the Board granted automatic certification under section 11 of the Act.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the ICI Provincial Agreement, alleging that the responding employer improperly assigned construction work as maintenance work.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that the union had already submitted the same dispute to the alternative dispute resolution mechanism under the General Presidents' Agreement (GPA), which resulted in a final and binding decision.

The Board upheld the preliminary motion, finding that the union had initiated the GPA grievance process and fully participated in it.

The Board concluded that it would be unfair to allow the union to re-litigate the issue after receiving an unfavourable decision from the GPA panel, and terminated the proceeding.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Ferretti Forming Inc. and Fer-Pal Construction Ltd. were a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and relief under section 69 for a sale of a business.

The responding parties conceded the pre-conditions for section 1(4) were met but argued against the Board exercising its discretion.

The Board found that Ferretti Forming voluntarily entered into a bargaining relationship to secure union work, without intermingling of employees or diversion of work from the unionized company.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to grant the related employer declaration and dismissed the application.

The applicant unions sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against Con-Ex Inc. and the Dobben group of companies, as well as a declaration of joint liability for outstanding debts.

The Board found that while the entities carried on associated or related activities under common control, it declined to exercise its discretion to declare them one employer because Con-Ex was not performing work covered by the collective agreement.

However, the Board declared Dobben Construction Inc. and Marcon Contractors jointly liable for the prior debts of Dobben Group Inc.

The applicant local union alleged that its parent international union violated section 147 of the Labour Relations Act by altering its jurisdiction without just cause.

The parent union had restricted the local union's jurisdiction to direct employees of the employer, removing its jurisdiction over work performed by contractors, and redistributing that work to other local unions.

The Board held that the parent union had just cause to alter the jurisdiction.

The Board found that the parent union's decision was a fair and reasonable resolution to an ongoing internal jurisdictional dispute, and that returning the local unions to their intended jurisdictional positions would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employers' association applied for accreditation to represent employers engaged in low-rise concrete forming in the residential sector.

The applicant and the responding union agreed on the bargaining unit description.

Intervenor employer associations argued the unit should be broader, encompassing all employers bound by various residential sector collective agreements, to reflect contemporaneous bargaining practices.

The Board found that the proposed unit reflected the existing, stable bargaining structure and was viable for collective bargaining.

The Board determined the proposed unit was appropriate and directed notice to employers.

The applicants sought an order confirming the assignment of hand digging and backfilling work at the base of transmission towers to members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1788.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059, claimed the work should have been assigned to its members.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board confirmed the assignment to the IBEW, finding that the digging and backfilling functions were not severable from the other functions performed by the IBEW crew.

Assigning the work to the Labourers would result in serious inefficiencies, as the digging and backfilling constituted only a minor portion of the overall work.

A dissenting board member would have required further written submissions to clarify the description of the work.

The applicant sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to prevent the responding union from proceeding with an internal trial against him for allegedly failing to ensure his crew members paid back dues.

The applicant argued the trial was a reprisal for his involvement in ongoing Board proceedings challenging the union's status.

The Board granted the interim order, finding that the potential harm to the applicant and the risk of chilling witness participation outweighed the union's interest in conducting its internal affairs without interference pending the resolution of the main unfair labour practice complaint.

The Labourers' union brought a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act, challenging PCL/McCarthy's assignment of construction work on the Canadian portion of the Blue Water Bridge to the Carpenters' union.

The Carpenters raised a preliminary objection that the project fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found it had constitutional jurisdiction, as the construction of the bridge was not integral to its future federal operation.

On the merits, the Board declined to disturb the work assignment, finding that the Carpenters had a valid collective agreement with the employer, whereas the Labourers did not, which outweighed area practice evidence favouring the Labourers.

The applicant union alleged that the responding employer unlawfully used replacement workers during a strike, contrary to section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding a technical error in the corporate name on the Minister's 'No Board' report, which the Board dismissed, finding the employer had received and acted upon the notice.

On the main issue, the union had conducted a single strike vote among all its members who worked in the sector, rather than limiting the vote to the employees of the responding employer, with whom it was bargaining individually.

The Board held that under section 73.1(2), when an employer bargains individually outside the ICI sector and without accreditation, only the votes of that specific employer's employees may be counted to determine if the required 60 percent authorization was achieved.

Because the union could not establish that 60 percent of the responding employer's employees authorized the strike, the preconditions of section 73.1 were not met, and the application failed.

The applicant Ontario Construction Secretariat brought complaints against the responding unions for failing to remit payments required under O. Reg. 187/93.

The responding unions raised a preliminary constitutional challenge, arguing the regulation imposed an unconstitutional indirect tax and violated their freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Board dismissed the constitutional challenges, finding that the regulation of labour relations is within provincial jurisdiction and the required payments are valid administrative fees ancillary to a provincial regulatory scheme, not a tax.

Relying on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the Board also held that compelled payments do not infringe the freedom of association.