Ian C. A. Springate

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a first collective agreement, specifically regarding the issue of union security.

The employer took a firm position against compulsory dues check-off, offering only voluntary check-off.

The Board found that the employer had engaged in rational and informed discussion and was entitled to take a firm position on union security.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting on the grounds that the employer's rigid stance on union security constituted surface bargaining.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer improperly sub-contracted plastering and stucco work.

The respondent argued that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights, as it had not directly employed bricklayers for five or six years.

The Board found that the union had not voluntarily abandoned its rights, noting that the respondent had complied with sub-contracting provisions by using unionized firms and that the employer bargaining agency had continued to include the respondent in provincial agreements.

The Board ruled the respondent was bound by the provincial collective agreement and directed the parties to attempt to resolve the remaining issues.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for employees of the respondent in Metropolitan Toronto.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the bargaining unit, with the respondent seeking to restrict it to a single location.

The Board applied its general practice of describing bargaining units on a municipality-wide basis, as all employees in the included classifications worked at one location.

The Board excluded students employed during the school vacation period but included part-time employees.

A Labour Relations Officer was appointed to inquire into the duties of dispatchers and call takers.

The Board granted interim certification pending the final resolution of the bargaining unit composition.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging the employer discharged and laid off ten employees for their involvement in a union organizing campaign, and sought certification without a vote under section 7a of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the employer's explanations for the terminations unconvincing and concluded the actions were motivated by anti-union animus, violating section 58 of the Act.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the employees with compensation.

Furthermore, finding that the employer's unlawful conduct made it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained through a representation vote, the Board granted automatic certification to the union.

The complainant alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Act.

Following a newspaper report about a hospital error, union officials, acting on unfounded rumours that the complainant leaked the information, organized a meeting and signed a petition demanding his dismissal under threat of an unlawful work stoppage.

The complainant was subsequently discharged.

The Board found that the union officials' actions in demanding his discharge without investigation constituted arbitrary conduct in violation of section 60.

However, the union's later decision not to seek judicial review of an arbitration award upholding the discharge was found not to violate the Act.

The union was ordered to compensate the complainant for lost earnings up to the date of the arbitration award.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the designation of employee and employer bargaining agencies in the construction industry, following the affiliation of the Lathers' International Union with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

The Board found that the previous separate designations for the Lathers and their corresponding employers were no longer effective in either a legal or industrial relations sense.

The Board concluded that separate designations for acoustic and drywall workers were not appropriate, and recommended that all affected parties be included within a single set of comprehensive designations to reflect the consolidation of bargaining rights and avoid jurisdictional disputes.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent contractor violated a provincial agreement by contracting out work to a firm employing members of an intervening union.

The respondent and intervener argued the work fell within the residential sector, while the applicant claimed it was in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector.

The Board determined that the sector issue under section 135 of the Act should be resolved prior to considering the merits of the grievance or the intervener's jurisdictional dispute complaint.