H.J.F. Ade

The applicant union applied for certification but failed to file a duly completed Form 54, Declaration Concerning Membership Documents.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, noting that without the Form 54 declaration, the Board cannot give any weight to the documentary membership evidence filed.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent companies were bound by the provincial Carpenters' collective agreement, either as a sale of a business under s. 55 or as related employers under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The principal, Roy Brandon, had operated a unionized construction company that went bankrupt in 1973.

He subsequently started new non-union companies.

The Board found that while s. 55 did not apply, the companies were related employers under s. 1(4) despite the intervening bankruptcy.

The Board exercised its discretion to grant the declaration but limited its retroactive effect, making it applicable only to contracts entered into after the respondents received notice of the union's claim.

One Board member dissented on the prospective limitation of the remedy.

The complainant employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent union violated section 38(2) of the Labour Relations Act by refusing union membership to an employee who had previously crossed a picket line and allegedly requiring his discharge.

The parties agreed to a statement of facts and asked the Board to provide an advisory opinion on the applicable law rather than making a formal determination.

The Board explained that while it cannot force a union to admit an individual into membership, section 38(2) prohibits a union from requiring an employer to discharge an employee under a union security clause if membership was denied because the employee engaged in activity against the union, such as crossing a picket line while represented by another union.

The proceedings were terminated based on the parties' agreement.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, claiming that employees working on the Petrosar project were entitled to a travel allowance.

The respondent employer argued the project fell within the 'Free Zone' where no allowance was payable, asserting a latent ambiguity in the collective agreement's boundary description.

The Board applied the test from Leitch Gold Mines, finding no latent ambiguity as the parties' intention to use specific roadways as boundaries was clear from the negotiating history.

The Board allowed the grievance, concluding the project was in Zone A and travel allowances were payable.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent soft drink distributor.

The parties disputed the status of twelve delivery drivers who owned or leased their trucks.

The Board applied the dependent contractor test under section 1(1)(ga) of The Labour Relations Act, finding that the drivers' economic dependence on the respondent and their obligation to perform duties more closely resembled an employment relationship than that of independent contractors.

The Board concluded the drivers were dependent contractors and included them in the bargaining unit, granting the certificate.

The applicant trade union, Local 183, applied for certification for a unit of construction labourers.

The Board considered whether to continue its historical policy of distinguishing between the bargaining units granted to Local 183 and Local 506 in the Toronto area, given the new section 131a of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that section 131a contains mandatory directives regarding the appropriate bargaining unit, which precludes the Board from continuing the previous distinction or making sectoral determinations as a condition precedent to certification.

The Board found that both locals are entitled to apply under either subsection 1 or 3 of section 131a, and issued certificates to the applicant for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector province-wide, and for all other sectors in the local geographic area.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by issuing disciplinary letters to three transit drivers who refused to work voluntary overtime.

The refusal was part of a union-imposed ban on overtime during a legal strike position.

The Board held that a concerted refusal to work overtime constitutes a strike, and because the employees were in a legal strike position, their participation was a protected right under the Act.

The employer's disciplinary action amounted to prohibited discrimination and penalization for exercising a statutory right.

The employer was directed to remove the warning letters from the employees' files, but the union's application for consent to prosecute was denied.

The applicant union filed a new application for certification after withdrawing a previous application due to an irregularity in membership evidence.

The respondent employer argued that the new application was untimely and that the previous irregularity tainted the fresh membership evidence, requesting a representation vote.

The Board found no intention to mislead in the prior application and noted that fresh, untainted membership evidence was filed.

The Board declined to direct a representation vote and granted the certificate.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer bargained in bad faith by repudiating a memorandum of agreement.

The parties had resolved all outstanding issues and signed a memorandum subject to ratification.

Before ratification, the respondent acquired a related company and subsequently refused to ratify the agreement unless the union agreed to amend the recognition clause to explicitly exclude the employees of the newly acquired company.

The Board held that the respondent's insistence on altering the recognition clause to avoid the potential application of the related employer provisions of the Labour Relations Act was inconsistent with the scheme of the Act and constituted a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents, Hugh Murray (1974) Limited and Trend Building Systems, were one employer.

The Board found that both companies were owned and controlled by the same individual, engaged in related construction activities, and operated from the same premises.

The Board granted the declaration, piercing the corporate veil to prevent the erosion of bargaining rights, and held that the union's province-wide bargaining rights applied to both entities.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondents.

The central issue was whether two individuals who performed work on a service station owned by the respondents were employees.

The Board found that the individuals were retained as independent contractors, as they agreed to a flat sum for the work, set their own hours, and were not supervised by the respondents.

As the respondents did not employ any carpenters on the date of the application, the application for certification was dismissed.

The respondent employers brought a request to vary an interim order previously issued by the Board in a jurisdictional dispute under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employers sought to add specific installation work to the order.

The Board noted that both the complainant and respondent trade unions had claimed this work at the time the initial complaint was filed, and their positions remained unchanged.

Relying on its jurisdiction under section 95(1) of the Act, the Board varied the interim order to direct the employers to assign the additional work to members of the appropriate complainant trade unions.

The applicant, a working foreman, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the statement of desire was involuntary because the applicant exercised supervisory functions, leading employees to perceive management involvement.

The Board found no actual management involvement and concluded that employees would likely view the applicant as acting in his own self-interest rather than on behalf of management.

The Board ordered a representation vote.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the application, finding the petition involuntary due to the applicant's perceived managerial authority.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a unit of cement masons and construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The intervener challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that under Bill 22, bargaining rights were vested in designated employee bargaining agencies and provincial agreements were binding.

The Board dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, distinguishing between the acquisition of bargaining rights and the organization of bargaining rights at the provincial level for collective bargaining.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support and that the intervener lacked bargaining rights for the affected employees, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

In a certification application, the Board held a hearing to determine whether a Labour Relations Officer should inquire into the duties of persons classified as drillers and rock truck drivers.

The applicant union argued that drillers are labourers and rock truck drivers are teamsters, and thus neither fall within the operating engineers' jurisdiction.

The respondent employer argued that both classifications are included in its local collective agreement with the applicant.

The Board ruled that drillers are construction labourers and directed the Officer not to inquire into their duties.

However, the Board found the employer's apprehension regarding rock truck drivers valid and directed the Officer to report on their duties, noting the employer's undertaking to proceed via an agreed statement of fact.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote to displace the incumbent union.

A two-way vote was held, resulting in a tie, meaning the applicant failed to secure more than fifty percent of the ballots cast.

Following the vote, the applicant sought to challenge the results, arguing that the incumbent union lacked status, that the vote should not have been held, and that some employees misunderstood the voting notices due to language barriers.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that the applicant could not repudiate the vote after having agreed to the arrangements, waived objections to its regularity, and lost.

The Board also found that the statutory notices were adequate and that language difficulties did not justify setting aside the vote.

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

A witness summoned by the applicant failed to attend the hearing despite being personally served with a Summons to Witness and conduct money.

The applicant requested that the Board enforce the summons.

The Board held that it has the authority under the Labour Relations Act to enforce the attendance of a witness in the same manner as a court of record in civil cases, which includes issuing a warrant for arrest.

Finding the witness's evidence material to the case, the Board issued a warrant directing the Sheriff to arrest the witness and bring him before the Board.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of field employees engaged in surveying operations.

The union filed membership evidence for both employees in the unit.

A statement of desire opposing the union was subsequently filed, signed by one bargaining unit employee and a supervisory party chief.

The Board found that the bargaining unit employee's decision to sign the statement was likely influenced by the supervisory party chief and concerns that management would become aware of his choice.

Consequently, the Board declined to direct a representation vote and issued a certificate to the applicant union.

The complainant, a laid-off employee, filed a complaint alleging the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union's business agent failed to inform the complainant that his grievance regarding a layoff out of seniority had been denied by the employer, and knowingly misrepresented to the complainant and the union membership that the grievance was still being processed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the business agent's conduct was arbitrary and in bad faith, depriving the complainant of the opportunity to pursue his grievance to arbitration.

The Board declared that the union breached the Act and directed the parties to agree on compensation.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 14 of the Labour Relations Act.

During a protracted strike, the employer continued to pay non-striking employees the rates from its last pre-strike offer.

However, near the end of the six-month strike period, the employer informed the union it would only sign an agreement if the union agreed to a wage reduction or lump sum payment to reimburse the employer for business losses suffered during the strike.

The Board found that this demand, coupled with the employer's failure to unilaterally reduce wages based on economic conditions, was designed for rejection and penalized employees for exercising their right to strike.

The Board concluded the employer was not negotiating with the intention of concluding a collective agreement and directed it to cease and desist from bargaining in bad faith.