I. Wilson

The applicant unions referred grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The principals of the respondent companies were duly served with summonses to witness but failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The unions requested the Board to issue a Sheriff's warrant for their arrest to compel attendance.

The Board reviewed its authority to enforce the attendance of witnesses in the same manner as a court of record in civil cases.

Finding that the witnesses were properly served, their evidence was material, and they failed to attend, the Board issued warrants for their arrest to ensure their presence at the continuation of the hearing.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred between Canada Safeway Limited and the respondent.

The respondent had subleased a former Safeway location and purchased some fixtures after Safeway closed the store.

The respondent extensively renovated the premises to open an ethnically-oriented supermarket.

The Board found that the respondent did not acquire Safeway's business, but merely purchased idle assets to expand its own successful, pre-existing business.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant union sought an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act regarding a work assignment dispute over the stripping of concrete forms.

The employer had initially assigned the work to a composite crew of labourers and carpenters.

Following a work stoppage by the carpenters, the employer reassigned the work to specific trades.

The respondent union challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing a strike was not imminent.

The Board found that the walk-out constituted a strike and that the threat of a strike remained imminent if the composite crew was reinstated.

The Board held it had jurisdiction and issued an interim order directing the employer to resume using a composite crew, emphasizing the policy objective of not rewarding work stoppages in jurisdictional disputes.

The applicants, employees of Northland Glass and Metal Limited, applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued that the application was instigated by the employer because the lead applicant had asked the employer for the name of a lawyer to assist with the decertification.

The Board found that this single inquiry, standing alone, was insufficient to indicate management influence, especially since the employees had previously considered decertification.

The Board concluded the statement of desire was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the employer involvement sufficient to dismiss the application.