Ian C. A. Springate

The applicant union requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision finding Local 700 bound by a memorandum of settlement.

The union argued there was no evidence it authorized the settlement and that negotiations must take place through counsel.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no principle requires settlement negotiations to occur through counsel.

The Board also held that neither the Ironworkers District Council nor the other locals had standing to continue the grievance referral, as only Local 700 held representational rights for the employees and its rights regarding grievances were not vested in the Council.

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 referred a grievance to the Board and sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that J.D.S. Investments Limited and Martin Ross Construction Ltd. constitute one employer.

The Board found that although the two companies had no common shareholders or officers, Martin Ross Construction's activities were in fact directed by J.D.S.'s construction manager, and the benefits accrued largely to J.D.S.'s owners.

The Board concluded the firms were engaged in related activities under common control or direction.

The Board exercised its discretion to make the declaration to prevent the erosion of bargaining rights, and held that the declaration had retrospective effect to the commencement of the related activities.

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 intervener, Labourers' Local 183, requested that the Board reconsider its decision certifying the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) as the bargaining agent for the respondent's employees.

Local 183 alleged that CLAC obtained its membership evidence with the assistance of the employer, contrary to section 12 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that while the employer had mentioned CLAC to some employees, he did not tell them they had to join the union to work, and CLAC neither sought nor knowingly benefited from management support.

The Board concluded that section 12 did not apply and denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent school board violated the subcontracting provision of the provincial collective agreement by awarding a construction contract to a non-union general contractor.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the respondent was acting in its capacity as an owner letting a primary contract, rather than as an employer in the construction industry subcontracting out work.

Because the respondent did not itself subcontract out any work, its actions did not fall within the purview of the collective agreement's subcontracting restriction.

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 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 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 Building Trades Council and several affiliated unions filed complaints and grievances against Ins-Co Sarnia Ltd. following the discharge of employees after an unlawful strike.

The parties engaged in settlement discussions, resulting in a memorandum of settlement signed by the Council's president.

Ironworkers Local 700, a member of the Council, subsequently argued it was not bound by the settlement and sought to continue its proceedings.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the Council had ostensible authority to settle the matters on behalf of Local 700.

As the employer relied on this authority without knowledge of any internal limitations, the settlement was binding on Local 700, and the proceedings were terminated.

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 applied for certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters employed by the respondent in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector province-wide, and in all other sectors in Grey County.

On the application date, the respondent had no employees working in the ICI sector, but had carpenters working in residential construction in Grey County.

The Board held that under section 131a(1) of the Labour Relations Act, an application can relate to the ICI sector even if no employees are working in that sector on the application date, provided the proposed bargaining unit encompasses it.

Finding that the union had the requisite membership support among the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board issued two certificates: one for the ICI sector province-wide, and one for all other sectors in Grey County.

A dissenting board member argued that the desires of carpenters working outside Grey County should have been considered before issuing a province-wide ICI certificate.

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 applicant, Cambridge Employees' Association, applied for certification to represent the respondent's employees.

The intervener, another trade union, also applied for certification and argued that the applicant lacked trade union status or was barred from certification under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act due to employer support.

The Board found that the applicant had taken the necessary steps to constitute itself as a trade union.

The Board also found insufficient evidence to support the intervener's claim of employer support, despite the applicant's president having obtained the name of their legal counsel from the respondent's general manager.

The intervener's application was dismissed for lack of sufficient membership evidence, and a certificate was issued to the applicant.

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 employer and the union jointly applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for consent to the early termination of their collective agreements to facilitate renegotiation and prevent plant closure.

An employee objected based on dissatisfaction with the proposed new terms.

The Board granted consent, noting that the statutory restriction on early termination is intended to protect the open period for representation challenges, and there was no evidence that the objector or any other employee sought to challenge the union's bargaining rights.

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 applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had been certified less than a year prior, but the employees had engaged in a lawful strike.

The applicant argued that the strike triggered the time limits in section 53(3) of the Labour Relations Act, overriding the one-year protection period in section 49(1).

The Board held that section 53(3) cannot reduce the one-year period of protection accorded to a newly certified union.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent was bound by a provincial agreement.

The respondent denied being bound, arguing a prior working agreement did not create bargaining rights.

The applicants argued this issue was res judicata due to prior Board decisions.

The Board held that a principle analogous to res judicata applies to its proceedings and precluded the respondent from relitigating the effect of the working agreement, directing the matter to be re-listed for hearing on the merits.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of employees of the respondent municipality.

The central issue was whether employees working at the Lakeview Cemetery and the Meaford and St. Vincent Community Centre were employees of the municipality.

The Board found that the Board of Park Management, which manages the cemetery, is a separate corporate entity under The Public Parks Act, and thus its employees are not employees of the municipality.

Conversely, the Board determined that the Committee of Management for the community centre, established under The Community Recreation Centres Act, has no separate legal status as an employer.

Consequently, the employees at the community centre are employees of the municipality.

The respondent was directed to file an amended list of bargaining unit employees including those at the community centre.