F. Burnet

The applicants sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union representing maintenance employees of a trucking company.

The intervener employer argued that its business, which involved hauling freight internationally, was a federal undertaking outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board applied constitutional principles and found that the employer's continuous and regular international haulage constituted an undertaking extending beyond the limits of the province.

Consequently, the labour relations of its maintenance employees fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board declared it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application.

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

The union filed a counter-petition signed by employees who wished to continue being represented by the union, which included signatures of employees who had previously signed the applicants' petition.

The applicants alleged the counter-petition was not voluntary due to perceived employer support and undue influence by the union.

The Board found no evidence of employer support for the counter-petition and concluded the union's conduct did not impair the employees' ability to voluntarily express their wishes.

As the voluntary counter-petition reduced the applicants' support below the required 45 per cent, the application was dismissed.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith and unlawfully locked out employees during first contract negotiations.

The union argued that the employer engaged in surface bargaining and that the lockout, along with the use of temporary replacement workers, was motivated by anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had engaged in permissible hard bargaining rather than surface bargaining.

The Board concluded that the employer's refusal to agree to a compulsory union membership clause was based on a genuine matter of principle, and that the lockout was lawfully motivated by a desire to control the timing of a work disruption and to pressure the union into modifying its bargaining positions.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by hiring members of Local 675 instead of Local 18 for drywall work.

At the outset of the hearing, the respondent requested an adjournment because Local 675 had not received notice of the proceedings.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that Local 675's members could be adversely affected by the outcome and that their interests could not be adequately represented by the mutual employee bargaining agency or the respondent employer.

The complainant, a member of the respondent union, filed a complaint under section 85 of the Labour Relations Act seeking the release of the union's audited financial statements.

The union opposed the complaint, arguing that the complainant was acting as an agent for a rival union, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW), which she actively supported.

The Board held that the complainant's support for a rival union did not disentitle her to access the financial information of her own union under section 85.

The Board ordered the respondent union to deliver the audited financial statements to the complainant.