H.J.F. Ade

Two unions, Local 1190 and Local 183, filed competing applications for certification regarding the respondent employer.

A representation vote was held, which Local 1190 won.

Subsequently, Local 1190 withdrew its application and membership evidence.

Local 183 argued it should be certified despite losing the vote, alleging improper collusive behaviour between the employer and Local 1190.

The Board dismissed Local 183's application, noting it did not win the representation vote and the Board had not heard all evidence regarding the allegations of improper conduct.

The Board also declined to impose the usual six-month bar on the unsuccessful unions due to the significant time that had elapsed since the vote.

During a hearing, the applicant sought to prove documents produced under a subpoena duces tecum without calling the person who produced them as a witness, thereby avoiding cross-examination.

The Board initially ruled the documents must be proved by calling the person as a witness.

Upon reconsideration, the Board reviewed the historical and legal distinction between the ad testificandum and duces tecum aspects of a subpoena.

The Board revoked its previous ruling, holding that a person producing documents pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum does not need to be sworn as a witness and is not subject to cross-examination.

The respondent employer requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider and revoke a certification decision made three years earlier.

The employer claimed it had not received proper notice and had returned the Board's forms unread, asking for an explanation.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration without a hearing, finding that the employer had been properly served, had failed to read the clear instructions on the forms, and was the author of its own misfortune.

The Board held that the employer had not acted with due diligence and had not been denied natural justice.

The applicant union applied for certification and challenged the status of the intervener union.

The intervener relied on a short-form agreement signed with the respondent employer before any employees were hired for a construction project.

The applicant argued this constituted improper employer support under the Labour Relations Act, rendering the agreement invalid.

The Board held that in the construction industry, signing a collective agreement to secure union members from a hiring hall before they commence work does not constitute improper employer support.

The Board found the agreement was a valid collective agreement, giving the intervener status, and directed the matter to continue.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that a numbered company and Mandic Bros. constituted one employer, or alternatively that a sale of business occurred under section 63.

The Board dismissed the section 63 application as no evidence was presented.

Regarding section 1(4), while there was some interchange of employees and shared premises, Mandic Bros. had operated as a non-union contractor for over five years before the numbered company was formed and signed a voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration, finding no erosion of bargaining rights and noting the union could have applied for certification of Mandic Bros.

A dissenting board member would have granted the declaration.

The complainants filed a complaint regarding a work assignment dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

The collective agreement required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB).

The complainants argued the IJDB was no longer operating, but failed to provide evidence or actually refer the matter to it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that under section 91(14) of the Act, it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint because the parties had mutually selected a tribunal to resolve the dispute and that process had not been frustrated.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after receiving a disciplinary notice.

The respondent employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint lacked particularity, was filed after an unreasonable delay, and was barred because the complainant had initially elected to pursue a grievance to arbitration.

The Board dismissed the objections, finding the delay was not excessive given the union's internal changes and efforts to resolve the matter.

Furthermore, the Board held that the statutory election of arbitration requires an actual adjudicative settlement; since the union withdrew the grievance before arbitration, the complainant was not barred from pursuing the matter before the Board.

The applicant employer applied under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that the respondent union no longer represented its employees, alleging a failure to bargain.

The union had been certified in November 1979 and sent a notice to bargain, but failed to follow up or commence bargaining for over two years.

The union argued the application was untimely because it had recently requested the appointment of a conciliation officer.

The Board found the application timely as no officer had yet been appointed when it was filed.

Given the union's prolonged inactivity without justifiable reason, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine if the employees still wished to be represented by the union.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the Carpenters' provincial agreement by failing to hire local union members or obtain a referral slip for carpentry work performed on a construction project.

The work was performed entirely by the president of the respondent company.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the president was a managerial person and not an 'employee' within the meaning of the collective agreement's transfer and hiring provisions.

As such, he was not prohibited from performing the work or required to obtain a referral slip.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board, alleging that the respondents were related or successor employers under the Labour Relations Act and were bound by a provincial collective agreement.

The Board found that the union had acquired bargaining rights for the respondent in 1974 but had made no attempt to negotiate a collective agreement since 1975.

The Board concluded that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights prior to the introduction of provincial bargaining in 1978.

Consequently, the grievance referral was dismissed.

A dissenting Board member would have found no abandonment.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent rodmen employed by the respondent construction company.

The respondent and interveners alleged that the applicant unlawfully coerced the respondent into hiring two of its members by threatening to picket the construction site, which would likely cause an unlawful strike.

The Board found that the applicant's representative did threaten to picket the site if the respondent did not replace members of another union with its own members.

The Board held that this threat constituted a threat of an unlawful strike under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

Because the employment of the two union members was obtained through this unlawful conduct, the Board refused to recognize them as employees for the purpose of the certification application, resulting in the dismissal of the application due to insufficient membership support.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer violated a provincial collective agreement.

The respondent argued that it was not bound by the agreement, asserting that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights or was estopped from asserting them due to a four-and-a-half-year delay in enforcement.

The Board found that the respondent was bound by successive collective agreements by operation of law under the Labour Relations Act, including the province-wide collective agreement.

The Board rejected the abandonment and estoppel arguments, determining that a collective agreement was in effect and directing the matter to continue on the issue of damages.

The complainant, a former zone affiliate of the respondent employer bargaining agency, alleged that the respondent breached its duty of fair representation under section 151(2) of the Labour Relations Act by excluding it from the Mechanical Trade Bargaining Committee (MTBC).

The complainant had withdrawn from full membership due to concerns over the involvement of non-union employers but sought continued participation in labour relations matters.

The Board found that the respondent acted arbitrarily by failing to properly consult with the complainant regarding negotiations.

The Board ordered the respondent to grant the complainant observer status at MTBC meetings, though it declined to order full voting rights.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that Inducon Construction of Canada Limited and related companies violated the Carpenters' provincial collective agreement.

The respondents argued that any bargaining rights previously held had been abandoned and that the companies were not related employers.

The Board found that the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights, as the employer had not operated in the geographic area for several years.

Applying section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board declared that Inducon Development Corporation, Inducon Design/Build Associates, and Inducon Construction (Northern) Inc. carried on associated or related activities under common control and direction, and treated them as one employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The Board declined to include Desbil Management Inc. and Inducon Consultants of Canada Limited in the declaration, finding no labour relations purpose to do so.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether persons occupying the positions of Senior Co-ordinator and Co-ordinator are employees for the purposes of the Act.

The respondent hospital opposed the application on various grounds, including that the positions had existed since 1971 without challenge.

The Board noted that the onus is on the party seeking to alter the status quo.

The Board appointed an officer to inquire into and report on the duties and responsibilities of the disputed positions.

During a certification application, the respondent's counsel failed to appear after an adjournment request was refused.

The applicant sought to introduce alleged prior statements of an absent witness as admissions against interest, which the Board refused due to their prejudicial value.

The applicant also requested the Board to certify facts to the Supreme Court for a bench warrant to enforce subpoenas against two absent witnesses.

The Board declined, ruling that the applicant must take responsibility for enforcing its own subpoenas.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide laid-off employees with their final wages and termination documents within 48 hours.

The employer had mailed the cheques, which arrived several days late.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the union's secretary had implicitly assured the employer during a telephone call that mailing the documents was satisfactory.

The Board held that the employer relied on this assurance, creating a promissory estoppel that prevented the union from enforcing the strict 48-hour time limit and claiming waiting time penalties.

A dissenting Board member would have upheld the grievance and awarded the penalty.

The complainant union filed a work assignment complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act after its members were removed from a job site.

The respondent union challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that no demand was ever made to the employer to assign work to members of a particular union.

The Board agreed, finding that the cancellation of the subcontractor's contract did not constitute a demand for work assignment within the meaning of section 91.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of employees at the Orangeville Sports Complex, claiming craft status under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act based on the requirement for a 'B' class refrigeration ticket.

The respondent municipality argued for a comprehensive unit of all outside employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant failed to establish the requirements for a craft unit, noting a lack of evidence of a history of separate bargaining for such employees.

The Board determined the proposed unit was inappropriate and, finding the applicant had less than forty-five percent membership in the appropriate broader unit, dismissed the application.

The employer referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the union engaged in an unlawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The union argued that the employer was estopped from claiming damages because it had delayed filing the grievance for eight months while acquiescing to the union's conduct.

The Board found that while estoppel might not strictly apply, the employer's unreasonable delay in asserting its rights under the collective agreement warranted limiting the retroactive period for which damages could be claimed.

The Board restricted the employer's damage claim to the period subsequent to March 10, 1980, and directed that the matter be re-listed for hearing on the merits for that period.