F. B. Reaume

The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place brought a jurisdictional dispute complaint concerning the assignment of work for erecting and dismantling flats and risers for Bridal Shows at the Queen Elizabeth Exhibition Hall.

The work was performed by Elite Show Services for Klanside Inc., who had licensed the hall.

The dispute was between I.A.T.S.E. Local 58 and Labourers Local 506.

The Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors and found that the collective agreement and inherent jurisdictional claim of I.A.T.S.E. Local 58 outweighed the employer practice and economy/efficiency factors favouring Labourers Local 506.

The Board declared the work properly within the jurisdiction of I.A.T.S.E. Local 58 and directed that future assignments for Bridal Shows be made to its members.

The union filed a grievance against the employer for violating the subcontracting provision of the provincial collective agreement by subcontracting final clean-up work to a non-union company.

In a prior decision, the Board found the employer liable.

In this remedy phase, the employer argued the union must prove that a union subcontractor had the specific expertise and equipment to perform the work.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the union only needed to prove it had unemployed members available to perform the work, which it did.

The Board found the union entitled to damages for lost work opportunities and directed the parties to finalize the calculations.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act.

The responding employer sought to lead evidence that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights.

The union raised preliminary objections, arguing that the issue of abandonment was res judicata based on a prior Board decision and that abandonment cannot occur during the initial term of a collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding that the prior decision did not determine the abandonment issue and that abandonment could theoretically occur during an initial term.

The hearing was directed to proceed on the merits of the abandonment issue.

In an application for certification, a dispute arose regarding the appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant union and the employer sought a single 'all-employee' unit, while the incumbent union argued for separate units for nursing staff and other employees.

The Board found that the single unit proposed by the applicant was appropriate, noting the established bargaining history and the community of interest among the employees.

The Board directed that all ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote be counted together.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the employer breached the provincial collective agreement by assigning work at a Kemptville job site to members of another local union.

The Board interpreted the geographic jurisdiction provisions of the agreement and found that Kemptville was not within the applicant's exclusive jurisdiction, allowing the employer to assign the work at its discretion.

The Board also extensively reviewed its jurisdiction to award legal costs, concluding that it lacks the statutory authority to award costs in a section 126 proceeding absent a specific provision in the collective agreement.

The applicant union applied for certification of security guards at a condominium site.

Shortly after the application date, Meadowvale Security Guard Services Inc. acquired the contract for the site and became the new employer.

Meadowvale already had a collective agreement with the intervenor union (CLAC) that contained a broad recognition clause covering future sites.

The Board declined to proceed with the certification application, finding that the complex issues regarding the validity of the collective agreement, intermingling of employees, and representation rights could only be properly addressed if a successor employer application under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act was filed.

In an application for certification of a large unit of security guards, the parties agreed to a representation vote but disputed the union's request for the disclosure of employee addresses.

The employer argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to order disclosure and raised confidentiality concerns.

The Board held it had jurisdiction under section 105(2)(f) of the Labour Relations Act to make the direction.

Balancing the union's need to communicate with the electorate against the employer's confidentiality interests and employee privacy, the Board directed a compromise: the employer must produce address labels, and the union may attend the employer's offices to jointly label and mail sealed envelopes containing campaign literature at the union's expense.

Following a finding that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to employ union members, the parties agreed on the quantum of damages but disputed certain deductions and the method of payment.

The employer argued that the amount for an apprentice/oiler should be deducted as none was employed, and that damages should be paid directly to individuals with statutory deductions for income tax and unemployment insurance.

The Board rejected the deduction for the apprentice/oiler, finding the employer could not benefit from its failure to properly man the equipment.

The Board directed the employer to pay the full agreed damages of $126,879.82 to the union in trust on behalf of its members, leaving the statutory obligations to be resolved between the recipients and the government agencies.

Interest was ordered in accordance with the collective agreement and the Hallowell formula.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to reinstate two employees discharged during a union organizing campaign.

The employer alleged the employees were discharged for suspected theft and threatening behaviour.

The Board applied its two-part test for interim relief, finding that the union had established an arguable case that the discharges violated the Act.

The Board further concluded that the potential labour relations harm of discharging key union organizers during a campaign significantly outweighed the potential harm to the employer of temporarily reinstating them.

The Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the employees pending the final disposition of the main unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the employer improperly assigned work to members of another local.

At the hearing, the applicant sought to introduce evidence of an ambiguity in the provincial agreement but had not pleaded this issue.

The Board adjourned the matter to allow for proper pleadings.

Given the delay and the nature of the dispute, the Board issued an interim order permitting the employer to assign the disputed work to members of either local at its discretion until the application is finally resolved.

The Board reserved its decision on the employer's request for costs of the day.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the responding party general contractor violated the provincial collective agreement by subcontracting final cleanup work on a construction project to a non-union company.

The general contractor argued the final cleanup was maintenance work outside the construction industry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board upheld the grievance, finding that the final cleanup work was necessitated by the construction project and was part of the overall construction work undertaken by the general contractor.

The Board concluded the work was covered by the collective agreement and the general contractor violated the subcontracting clause.

The applicant union sought interim reinstatement of two employees pending the final disposition of an unfair labour practice discharge complaint against the responding employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the employer to reinstate the employees on an interim basis, but declined to grant any order regarding compensation.

The Board also ordered the employer to post a notice to employees regarding their rights under the Labour Relations Act.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and the parties agreed on a bargaining unit description during the Board's waiver process.

The union subsequently requested to amend the bargaining unit to include part-time employees, arguing that the Labour Relations Act required a combined unit.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the statutory language was permissive, not mandatory, and that the union had provided no compelling reasons to resile from the agreed-upon description.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance and applied for declarations that the responding parties constituted one employer and that a sale of business had occurred.

The principal of the first responding party's son incorporated a new company to perform demolition work, utilizing the same business name to benefit from established goodwill, while avoiding the union.

The Board found that a sale of business had occurred through the transfer of goodwill and that the two entities constituted one employer under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declared both entities bound by the collective agreement and jointly and severally liable for breaches related to a demolition project where non-union workers were employed.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred from Inplant Contractors Inc. to Flint Canada and Flint USA, or alternatively, that the companies were related employers under common control and direction.

Inplant, a unionized company, went into receivership, and its former officer and a key employee subsequently worked for the newly formed Flint Canada.

The Board found that Flint Canada was established to serve the pre-existing business of Flint USA, not to acquire Inplant's business.

The Board concluded that the hiring of the former Inplant personnel did not constitute a sale of a business.

Furthermore, the Board found that Inplant and Flint Canada were not under common control and direction.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant union alleged that the responding employers violated section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a lawful strike.

The employers brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that section 73.1, which came into force on January 1, 1993, did not apply because the strike and the hiring of replacement workers occurred prior to its enactment.

The majority of the Board dismissed the motion, finding that section 73.1 is not retroactive but applies prospectively to the ongoing status of a strike, prohibiting the continued use of replacement workers after the statutory preconditions are met.

The presumption against retrospectivity did not apply.

The responding party requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision awarding $16,298.10 in damages to the applicant union.

The request was made via letter, alleging the damages amount was wrong.

The applicant opposed the request, noting it was filed beyond the 30-day time limit and lacked sufficient facts.

The Board denied the application for reconsideration because it was not filed in the proper form, was filed late without reasons for the delay, failed to include complete written representations, and raised no issues that could not have been raised at the original hearing.

Two unions referred grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding work performed by the employer on a barge.

The employer argued the work was ship repair/refitting and not covered by the construction industry collective agreements.

The Board dismissed the Millwrights' grievance, finding the work on a chattel (the barge) was not 'construction' under their provincial agreement, nor did it qualify as 'maintenance' under their maintenance agreement.

However, the Board allowed the Operating Engineers' grievance, finding their province-wide agreement was not restricted to the construction industry and applied to the crane operation work which constituted steel erection or mechanical installation.

The applicant, Local 2, sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to stay the operation of a sub-contracting clause in a collective agreement between the Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association (MTABA) and Labourers' Local 183.

Local 2 alleged that the clause, which required all bricklaying work to be performed by companies bound to Local 183 or Local 1, interfered with its bargaining rights in the residential sector.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that Local 2 failed to provide sufficient particulars regarding the source of its bargaining rights for the affected contractors.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the potential harm to Local 183 and MTABA from staying a freely negotiated collective agreement provision outweighed the speculative harm alleged by Local 2, particularly given Local 2's delay in bringing the application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the respondent bank's failure to abide by a provincial collective agreement during the construction of a bank branch.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the construction of banks falls within exclusive federal jurisdiction over banking.

The Board applied a functional test and determined that the construction of a bank building is a pre-operational task and not an integral part of the core banking function.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the preliminary objection, found it had jurisdiction to hear the grievance, and directed the matter to be re-listed for hearing.