H.J.F. Ade

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

At the hearing, after the Board established the bargaining unit and announced the membership count, the employer sought to amend the list of employees to include two previously excluded employees.

The union then requested to reconsider the bargaining unit composition to exclude office and clerical staff.

The Board denied both requests, emphasizing that its rules and procedures are designed to prevent parties from gerrymandering employee lists or bargaining unit structures after the count is revealed.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted certification without a representation vote.

The applicant union applied to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for the respondent's plant employees.

The applicant won the representation vote.

The incumbent union argued that the application should be dismissed under section 13 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer provided support to the applicant.

The incumbent also argued that the vote was invalid because the employer failed to implement an arbitration award requiring the discharge of employees who did not pay union dues.

The Board found no evidence of employer support for the applicant and concluded that the employer's response to the arbitration award did not invalidate the vote.

The Board certified the applicant union.

The complainant union filed a complaint regarding a work assignment dispute.

The respondent union argued the Board should defer consideration of the complaint under sections 81(13) and 81(14) of the Labour Relations Act, as the collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board for the Construction Industry.

The Board agreed and postponed its inquiry to allow the matter to be referred to the mutually selected tribunal.

The complainants filed a complaint alleging that the respondents breached the Labour Relations Act by concluding collective agreements without consulting them or allowing ratification.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to strike out certain complainants, arguing they lacked the authority to commence the proceeding.

The Board held that the evidential burden to show authority rested with the complainants, as the facts were peculiarly within their knowledge, but the legal burden to prove lack of authority remained with the respondents.

The Board also dismissed the complaint under section 60 of the Act, finding that the duty of fair representation only applies to employees in a bargaining unit, not to trade unions or their representatives.

The matter was referred to the Registrar for continuation.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that Braneida Mechanical Service Ltd. was bound by a provincial agreement due to a sale of a business from Oliver Plumbing and Heating Limited.

Oliver had ceased operations and liquidated its assets, with Braneida purchasing a small portion of its equipment and hiring some former employees.

The Board found that Braneida was a new business rather than a continuation of Oliver, and therefore dismissed the grievance, concluding there was no sale of a business under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that two companies, Bramalea and Pinehurst, were one employer.

The companies were under common control and direction, with Bramalea operating as a unionized installation subcontractor and Pinehurst operating as a non-union woodworking shop and installation business.

The Board found that the statutory preconditions for a declaration were met.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to make the declaration, finding that the union was attempting to use section 1(4) as a substitute for certification to sweep a large group of non-union employees into the bargaining unit without demonstrating their support.

The application was dismissed.

The union applied for certification to represent a unit of vaultmen, messengers, drivers, and guards employed by an armoured car company.

The employer argued that the employees were guards within the meaning of section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, and that the union was ineligible to represent them because it admitted non-guards to membership.

The Board applied the conflict of interest test and found that the employees' duties did not raise a real possibility of a conflict of interest with other employees.

The Board concluded that the employees were not guards within the meaning of section 11 and granted the application for certification.

The union filed grievances alleging the employers violated the collective agreement by failing to provide or pay for screws and nails used by drywall applicators.

The employers complained the union bargained in bad faith by remaining silent on the issue during negotiations to alter past practice.

The Board held that the union's silence did not constitute bad faith bargaining, as the employers should have known the terms of the preceding agreement.

Interpreting the new collective agreement, which was silent on the issue unlike its predecessor, the Board found the employers were obligated to supply the materials and could not deduct their cost from piecework rates.

The complainant subcontractor filed a complaint under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a jurisdictional dispute over caulking work on precast concrete panels.

The respondent Carpenters Union challenged the Board's jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, arguing that its grievance was against the general contractor for violating a subcontracting clause, not a demand for work assignment from the complainant.

The Board found that the general contractor, bound by conflicting provincial agreements, had pressured the complainant to assign the work to the Carpenters.

The Board held this constituted 'requiring' the subcontractor to assign work within the meaning of section 81(1), giving the Board jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A petition in opposition was filed, signed by two employees who had previously signed union cards.

One of these employees subsequently filed a statement revoking his signature on the petition and reaffirming his desire to be represented by the union.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the revocation statement.

Despite the statement being a standard form, the Board found no basis to refuse it at face value, as the employee had the opportunity to read and agree with it.

The Board discounted the employee's signature on the petition, leaving the union with unequivocal membership support of over 55%.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of millwrights employed by the respondent in Ontario.

The application was opposed on the basis that a subsisting collective agreement existed between the respondent and an intervening union (Lodge No. 126), which was headquartered in Illinois.

The applicant argued that Lodge No. 126 lacked status as a trade union in Ontario because it had no permanent presence in the province, and that its agreement could not be a valid collective agreement.

The Board held that an organization need not have a permanent presence in Ontario to be a trade union, provided it is a viable organization capable of carrying out trade union functions in the province.

The Board found Lodge No. 126 met this definition and that its agreement with the respondent was a valid collective agreement covering Ontario.

Consequently, the application for certification was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by paying incorrect benefit and training fund amounts for operating engineers on landscaping work.

The employer argued the collective agreement contained a patent ambiguity regarding the application of the 'nearest influencing representative agreement' (the Evans agreement) to the wage schedules.

The Board found a patent ambiguity existed because applying the Evans agreement classifications to the Operating Engineers Appendix wage schedules produced a meaningless result.

Relying on extrinsic evidence of past practice, the Board concluded the parties intended the Evans agreement to modify the Appendix as set out in a 1980 letter from the employer association.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board considered whether the applicant, following a name change and merger, was a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(n) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant had continued the constitutional continuity of its predecessor and was therefore a trade union.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties of assistant managers and management trainees, but granted interim certification as the union had sufficient membership support regardless of the outcome of the dispute.

The applicant union brought an application under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a sale of a business occurred between Vaunclair Purveyors and Vaunclair Meats, and that the latter was bound by the existing collective agreement.

Vaunclair Purveyors had shut down its meat processing operations, and its principals subsequently incorporated Vaunclair Meats, which operated as a distribution house from the same location, serving many of the same customers with some of the same employees and assets.

The Board found that while the new operation was smaller and functioned differently, it constituted a continuation of a severable part of the predecessor's business.

The Board concluded there was a sale of part of the business and that the union's bargaining rights continued.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged by the respondent employer because of his involvement in a union organizing campaign, contrary to section 58 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer maintained that the grievor was discharged due to a series of workplace misconduct incidents, including a vehicle accident, drinking on the job, and an insurance premium increase related to his driving record.

The Board found that the employer had no knowledge of the grievor's union activities and that the discharge was based on legitimate reasons free of anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The employer and the intervener employee association argued that an existing collective agreement barred the application.

The Board found that the association lacked a constitution and evidence of employees being bound together by agreement, concluding that the association had ceased to exist as a trade union.

Consequently, the purported collective agreement was not a valid bar to the application.

The Board directed further hearings on the bargaining unit composition and a petition of objection.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for construction labourers employed by the respondent in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector in Ontario.

The respondent alleged improper conduct by the union during organizing, but failed to adduce evidence to substantiate the claims.

The Board interpreted section 131a of the Labour Relations Act and determined that the applicant was entitled to two certificates: one for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector province-wide, and another for all other sectors in the relevant geographic area, excluding employees already covered by subsisting collective agreements.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act.

The grievance spanned two provincial agreements, and the respondent union argued that the portion relating to the expired collective agreement was inarbitrable.

The Board, adopting previous jurisprudence, held that rights accruing during the life of a collective agreement are vested and not automatically extinguished by its expiry.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to deal with the grievance under both the current and expired agreements and ordered the matter to be re-listed for hearing.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of equipment operators in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo.

The parties disputed whether certain off-site employees working in the respondent's pits and plants should be included in the bargaining unit for the purpose of the count under section 106(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the off-site employees were not commonly associated in their work with on-site employees, as there was no evidence of regular interchange between off-site and on-site work.

The Board excluded the off-site employees from the count and, finding that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, issued a certificate.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees in the respondent's flooring division.

The respondent argued the bargaining unit should include all trades employed on the date of application, encompassing both its flooring and roofing divisions.

The Board found that the applicant did not have craft union status and evaluated the appropriate bargaining unit under section 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Given the interchangeability of employees between the divisions and the potential for jurisdictional disputes in the construction industry, the Board determined the appropriate unit must include both the roofing and flooring divisions.

As the applicant had membership support of less than thirty-five percent in this broader unit, the application for certification was dismissed.