I. M. Stamp

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking a determination that there was an established local area work practice of its members performing the cutting and placing of lagging within its geographic jurisdiction.

The Board acted as the committee provided for under the provincial agreement to determine the work practice.

After reviewing the evidence of lagging work on industrial and commercial construction sites, the Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that contractors bound to the agreement had recognized the union's claim to the work.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union filed two applications for certification in the construction industry.

A group of employees filed statements of desire in opposition.

At the hearing, the representative for the objecting employees requested an adjournment, arguing he had not received adequate notice of the hearing.

The Board found that the representative had not been served with a notice of hearing because the statement he filed lacked his return address and did not explicitly identify him as the representative.

However, because the Board also failed to issue a general notice to employees at the employer's address, the representative did not receive adequate notice.

The Board granted the adjournment to allow the representative time to retain counsel.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent employer and the applicant agreed on the voting constituency.

However, the applicant filed a defective Form 9 declaration concerning membership documents.

The Board held that under subsection 9(2) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board only needs to determine if there is an appearance of membership support based on union and employer records, which combination application cards satisfy.

The Board directed the pre-hearing representation vote but ordered the ballot box sealed until a proper Form 9 declaration is filed.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry and challenged the respondent employer's list of employees.

The union argued that four employees who were laid off on the morning of the application date, before reporting to work, should be included in the bargaining unit count.

The Board held that in construction industry applications, only employees actually at work on the date of application are included in the count.

Since the four employees did not perform any work on that date, they were excluded from the count.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board amended its previous decision dated May 15, 1986, by deleting a sentence from paragraph 18 regarding the risk of having the Board determine the dispute on uncontested evidence.

The Registrar was directed to schedule the complaint for a pre-hearing conference.

The applicant employer association filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act challenging the respondent union's unilateral implementation of a '50/50' hiring system.

For many years, employers had been permitted to 'name-hire' any union member without restriction.

The employers argued that the union was estopped from altering this past practice.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement designated the union as the sole agent for supplying employees and did not guarantee a right to name-hire.

The Board held that promissory estoppel did not apply because the union had previously interrupted the practice, putting employers on notice, and the employers had unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a contractual right to name-hire.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer applied the wrong collective agreement to fire damage restoration work at a refinery.

The employer had applied the maintenance agreement, while the union argued the construction agreement should apply.

The Board found that the repair of the fire-damaged unit, which had ceased to function, constituted work in the construction industry under s. 1(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act.

Because the work was in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector, only the provincial construction agreement could apply pursuant to s. 146(2) of the Act.

The Board rejected the employer's arguments that the union was estopped from claiming damages due to past practice or undue delay.

The grievance was allowed, and the Board remained seized of the damages quantum.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of construction labourers.

The respondent employer requested a representation vote, arguing that the current workforce of three employees was not representative because it anticipated hiring approximately 25 employees for upcoming contracts.

The Board declined to apply the build-up principle, noting that short-term employment is typical in the construction industry and the Board consistently considers only those at work on the application date.

The Board certified the applicant without a hearing.

The Board heard a request for reconsideration of an oral ruling regarding notice to laid-off employees, which was dismissed as the issue had already been considered.

The Board also addressed a dispute over a Labour Relations Officer's report where the respondent sought to challenge an agreed exclusion after previously confirming the report's accuracy.

The Board ruled that parties cannot make submissions contrary to their written representations filed in response to the report, and struck the disputed employee from the list.

The parties agreed to submit written arguments on the remaining issues.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that Ontario Hydro violated the collective agreement by contracting with 3-L Filters Limited for the supply of equipment. 3-L Filters Limited sought standing to intervene in the arbitration proceedings, arguing that its commercial interests and proprietary rights would be directly affected if the union succeeded.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for standing, holding that a third party not bound by the collective agreement is not entitled to intervene as of right, and that the Board's discretion to permit intervention should only be exercised where special labour relations circumstances exist, which were not present in this case.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employed non-union workers without referral slips.

At the hearing, the respondent argued the applicant should be restricted to the grievance as filed and precluded from raising interpretation issues not explicitly pleaded.

The Board ruled that a grievance need only particularize the factual allegations and reference the relevant collective agreement provisions, and the respondent is not entitled to particulars of the applicant's legal theory.

The matter was adjourned to be heard alongside a related grievance.

During a certification hearing, the applicant union sought to cross-examine the representative of the objecting employees about his duties and responsibilities to challenge the voluntariness of a statement of desire.

The respondent objected, arguing the parties had already agreed the representative was an employee in the bargaining unit.

The Board overruled the objection, holding that while such an agreement creates a rebuttable presumption that the employee does not exercise managerial functions, it does not preclude evidence regarding how other employees perceived the representative's duties and how that perception affected the voluntariness of their signatures.

The union requested a determination of employee status for twelve individuals under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued that the union was precluded from requesting this determination due to a prior agreement between the parties regarding exclusions from the bargaining unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected the employer's argument, holding that an examination of duties and responsibilities is permitted during negotiations for the renewal of a collective agreement, notwithstanding a prior agreement as to status.

The Board confirmed the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the disputed individuals.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The employer filed a list of employees, and a group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification, including some who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the petition, which was circulated by a working foreman who, while not managerial, had a special relationship with the employer.

The Board found that the foreman's involvement could reasonably influence employees to sign the petition to avoid exposing their union allegiance.

Consequently, the Board declined to give weight to the petition and certified the union based on its documentary evidence of membership.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote for a unit of part-time academic staff, professional counsellors, and professional librarians at the University of Ottawa.

The Board directed that a representation vote be conducted, defining the voting constituency and ordering that ballots of certain disputed categories of employees be segregated pending a final determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought a declaration under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents, Capricorn Acoustics & Drywall Ltd. and J & J Drywall, were bound by the same provincial agreement.

The respondents conceded they carried on related activities under common control.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration.

The Board found that the union had delayed in bringing the application, there was no evidence that work had been transferred from the unionized entity to the non-union entity to erode bargaining rights, and the union was attempting to use section 1(4) to acquire bargaining rights for an established non-union workforce without going through the certification process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a teachers' federation, sought certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The respondent objected, arguing the applicant was not a 'trade union' under the Labour Relations Act because its membership included school principals, who allegedly exercised managerial functions.

The respondent also argued the applicant's constitution and practices discriminated on the basis of sex.

The Board held that the inclusion of principals did not deprive the applicant of its trade union status, noting that principals are included in teachers' bargaining units under the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act and do not exercise managerial functions over occasional teachers.

The Board also found no evidence of prohibited sexual discrimination, concluding the applicant is a trade union entitled to seek certification.

The applicant union brought a preliminary motion regarding the filings made by the respondent in a series of certification applications.

The applicant argued that an agreement on the parties' respective positions had been reached before the Labour Relations Officer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the motion, finding that no such agreement was reached and that the Board had subsequently appointed an Officer to inquire into the list and composition of the bargaining unit.

The Board directed that the applications proceed based on the positions taken at the commencement of the Officer's inquiry.

The applicants, a group of employees describing themselves as guards, applied under sections 106(1) and 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to be excluded from a collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that an application under section 106(2) cannot be brought by employees when no question as to their status has arisen between the parties to the collective agreement.

Furthermore, the Board declined to reconsider the original certification decision under section 106(1), noting that the certificate was spent and the applicants were bound by the negotiated collective agreement.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer challenged the membership evidence, alleging that one employee did not pay the required one dollar initiation fee.

The Board held a hearing and heard testimony from the employee, union representatives, and the collector.

Despite contradictions in the testimony and minor discrepancies on the membership card regarding the date and the actual recipient of the money, the Board accepted the oral evidence and found that the employee had paid the fee and signed the card.

The Board concluded that the union had the requisite membership support and issued a certificate.