G. Pickell

The applicant applied to decertify the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer in the specified bargaining unit.

The applicant unions initiated a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding a work assignment.

Prior to the hearing, the responding Boilermakers union withdrew its underlying grievance claiming the disputed work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the jurisdictional dispute proceeding as moot, noting that the underpinning work assignment claim had been withdrawn.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837 filed a jurisdictional dispute claiming that its members should have been assigned to tend carpenters erecting and dismantling scaffolding for Doug Chalmers Construction Limited at an Esso Refinery Plant.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered factors including collective agreements, safety, skill and training, economy and efficiency, and area practice.

The Board found that while some factors favoured the labourers, the factors of area practice (specifically the practice of specialty scaffolding contractors) and economy and efficiency strongly favoured the carpenters.

The Board affirmed the employer's assignment of the work exclusively to the carpenters.

The applicant union applied for certification of construction labourers employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote in favour of the union, the responding party challenged the Board's constitutional jurisdiction, arguing the employees were engaged in work on a federal property (an interprovincial bridge) and thus fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board applied the functional test for constitutional jurisdiction and determined that the responding party's primary business was construction, and its involvement with the bridge was temporary and not an integral part of the federal undertaking.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction and ordered the issuance of certificates to the union.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party joint venture failed to make required benefit fund contributions.

The responding party did not appear at the hearing.

The Board considered whether a joint venture is bound by a collective agreement signed by its constituent corporations.

Finding that a joint venture is generally a partnership at law, the Board held that the joint venture is bound by the collective agreement obligations of its partners when undertaking covered work.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $22,366.61 in liquidated damages for late payments.

The applicant City applied for declarations that the responding trade unions no longer represent its construction industry employees, asserting it is a non-construction employer under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding unions raised a constitutional challenge to sections 127.1 and 127.2 of the Act under the Charter.

The applicant sought to have the constitutional challenge determined on a preliminary basis, either by a motion to strike or following evidence on the constitutional issue alone.

The Board declined to hear the constitutional challenge as a preliminary matter, finding it premature as the Charter question would be moot if the applicant failed to establish it was a non-construction employer.

The Board directed that the constitutional issue be heard at the end of the proceedings.

The applicant union filed a complaint concerning a work assignment under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the employer's decision to upgrade the Electrical Apprenticeship Program by incorporating instrumentation training effectively excluded its members from future postings in the merged Electrical/Instrumentation Department.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer properly assigned the work based on efficiency and qualifications as per the parties' agreement, and noted that nothing prevented the applicant's members from participating in the program.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, resulting in one vote in favour and one spoiled ballot.

The parties mistakenly signed a certification worksheet agreeing to dismiss the application.

The applicant later realized the error and requested certification.

The Board held that while parties generally cannot revisit issues settled in a worksheet, the Board must apply the statute.

Since spoiled ballots are not counted, more than 50% of the valid votes cast were in favour of the applicant.

The Board issued a certificate to the applicant.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the responding parties assigned mechanical work on the Kingsway Retirement Residence project to a non-union contractor.

The parties sought a sector determination from the Ontario Labour Relations Board to decide whether the project fell within the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector or the residential sector.

After reviewing the end-use of the facility, which included significant medical and care services, common dining, and 24-hour nursing staff, the Board concluded that the retirement residence was institutional in nature.

Consequently, the Board determined that the construction project fell within the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The applicant, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1946, brought a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, regarding the erection of a pre-engineered building.

The employer, Wheelwright Construction Inc., had assigned the work to a 50-50 composite crew of ironworkers and carpenters.

The responding party, Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 473, argued the work should have been assigned to a composite crew including sheet metal workers, citing area practice.

The Board found that the four installations relied upon by the responding party did not create an overwhelming area practice sufficient to overturn the employer's assignment.

The Board upheld the assignment to the composite crew of ironworkers and carpenters.

The Ironworkers and Millwrights filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of work by the general contractor, E.S. Fox Limited, for the installation of fabricated material forming part of an integrated material handling system.

The Boilermakers claimed the work based on their collective agreement and constitution.

The Board found that the area practice in Board Area 1 favoured the Ironworkers and Millwrights, and that this practice was open and notorious.

The Board upheld the employer's assignment of the work to equal numbers of Ironworkers and Millwrights performing all work functions interchangeably.

A second jurisdictional dispute involving the Sheet Metal Workers and Boilermakers was scheduled for a later date.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer failed to apply the Principal Agreement to work on a blast furnace.

The union argued that a previous consent order of the Board regarding a similar grievance established that the work was construction work and that the employer was bound by the agreement, relying on res judicata and issue estoppel.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the previous consent order was reached without litigating the merits, and therefore the doctrines did not apply.

The Board also declined to hear evidence regarding the settlement discussions that led to the consent order, emphasizing the importance of protecting the settlement process.

The Labourers requested that the Board reconsider its decision assigning disputed work to the Carpenters.

The Labourers argued that the Board failed to properly apply its criteria for jurisdictional disputes and ignored evidence regarding bridge construction.

The Board held that it has discretion to consider relevant factors on a case-by-case basis and is not bound to mechanically apply a formula.

The Board found no reason to depart from its original assessment of area and employer practice, and denied the request for reconsideration.

The parent union (IBEW) assumed supervision and control over its local union (Local 1788) after the local's members voted to be represented by a different union and the local's executive began winding down its affairs and trust funds.

The local union filed an unfair labour practice complaint.

The IBEW moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case, and alternatively sought an interim order enforcing its supervision.

The Board dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding the complaint raised significant labour relations issues.

However, the Board granted the IBEW's request for an interim order, directing the local union to transfer control of its assets to the IBEW's appointed supervisor pending a final determination on whether the IBEW had just cause to assume supervision.

The Carpenters' union and the Labourers' union disputed the assignment of the carpentry portion of concrete forming work on two bridge projects in Board Area No. 8.

The employer, Ellis-Don Ltd., had assigned the work to the Carpenters.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered factors including employer practice, area practice, employer preference, and economy and efficiency.

The Board found that these factors supported the assignment of the disputed work to the Carpenters, while the remaining factors were neutral.

The Board ruled that the disputed work was properly assigned to the Carpenters.

The applicant trade union sought certification to represent a bargaining unit of masonry restoration employees, specifically steeplejacks, in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector.

The Board examined the provincial bargaining scheme and the specific designation orders for construction trades.

The Board concluded that the Labourers' general designation does not cover steeplejacks, as they are specifically covered by the Cement Masons' designation.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to bring the application under section 158(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The responding party failed to file a timely response under the Board's Rules of Procedure, delivering it late and without a list of employees.

The applicant brought a preliminary motion to preclude the responding party from challenging the status of the persons who voted in the representation vote, relying on previous Board jurisprudence.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, distinguishing the prior case law because the responding party asserted that the individuals listed by the applicant were not its employees at all.

The Board held that it would be inappropriate to allow strangers to determine a certification application, and directed that the status issues be litigated.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming that the operation of excavators with rock drill attachments on a pipeline project should have been assigned to its members rather than the responding union.

The Board found that the operation of the excavators fell within the jurisdiction of the responding union, regardless of the specific work the equipment was being used to perform.

The application was dismissed.

The union referred a construction industry grievance to arbitration, alleging the employer improperly laid off three employees and failed to recall them following a job site accident.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the grievance was untimely and failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that while the grievance was filed late, the employer waived its right to object to timeliness by engaging in settlement discussions without reserving its rights.

The Board also held that the collective agreement contained no right of recall, dismissing that aspect of the grievance, but found a prima facie case existed regarding the union's claim that the layoff itself was arbitrary or in bad faith.