J. D. Bell

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the respondent employer violated a provincial collective agreement.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing it was not bound by any collective agreement, or alternatively, that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights or was estopped from enforcing them.

The Board found that the respondent's president had signed a document intending to bind his company to the union, which constituted a valid voluntary recognition agreement binding the respondent to the provincial agreement.

The Board further held that the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights and was not estopped from enforcing the agreement, as it had acted diligently upon learning of potential violations.

The Board directed the parties to seek a settlement on liability and damages.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a renewal collective agreement, leading to a prolonged strike.

The union argued that the employer engaged in surface bargaining, withdrew previous offers, and delayed responding to union proposals.

The Board found that the employer's initial hard bargaining and subsequent changes in position due to economic circumstances did not amount to bad faith.

However, the Board held that the employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to promptly respond to the union's fresh proposals presented in September 1983.

The Board issued a declaration of this violation but declined to award damages, noting that both parties shared responsibility for the breakdown in negotiations.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent two crane operators employed by the respondent.

The intervener union and the respondent argued that the crane operators were already covered by the intervener's 'all-employee' collective agreement.

The Board found a latent ambiguity in the scope clause of the intervener's collective agreement and looked to the parties' past practice, which unequivocally showed that crane operators had been excluded from the agreement for over 20 years.

The Board determined that the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate and, as the applicant had the requisite membership support, ordered that a certificate issue.

The applicant trade union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Mechanical Contractors Association of Ontario (MCAO), the designated employer bargaining agency for the ICI sector, sought to be made a party to the proceedings.

The MCAO argued it had a direct interest because it would become the employer's bargaining agent if certification was granted, and because the threshold issue of whether the work was construction work affected its members.

The Board denied the MCAO's request, finding that an employer bargaining agency's statutory role is limited to collective bargaining and does not grant it a direct legal interest in certification proceedings or the determination of threshold jurisdictional issues.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent, who operated a bus terminal exclusively for Greyhound Lines of Canada Limited.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that its operations fell within federal jurisdiction, as Greyhound is an inter-provincial carrier.

The Board found that the respondent's ticketing, parcel handling, and maintenance functions were an integral and essential part of Greyhound's inter-provincial operation.

Consequently, the Board determined that the respondent's labour relations were subject to federal jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant union referred a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay the grievor a subsistence allowance.

The grievor claimed his regular residence was in Nova Scotia, where his family had temporarily moved, while he remained in his Oshawa home and commuted to the project.

The Board found that the grievor's regular residence remained in Oshawa, as he continued to live, sleep, and eat there, and maintained financial commitments for the property.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent trade union.

The union argued that the applicant lacked status to bring the application because he was not an employee in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the relevant bargaining unit was limited to employees in Board Area 8, and since the applicant worked in Hamilton and was not part of that unit, he had no status to apply.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, an employers' organization, applied for accreditation as the bargaining agent for certain employers in the residential sector of the construction industry who have a bargaining relationship with the respondent union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that it had jurisdiction, that the applicant was a properly constituted employers' organization, and that it represented a majority of the employers who employed a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit.

The Board granted the application and issued a Certificate of Accreditation.

During a hearing into a complaint of bad faith bargaining, the complainant union served a summons duces tecum on an officer of the respondent employer, requiring the production of payroll and benefit records for all employees during a strike.

The union alleged the employer demanded concessions while paying strike replacements and salaried employees higher wages and benefits.

The employer objected to producing records for salaried and managerial employees, claiming confidentiality.

The Board ordered the production of the records for any employees who performed bargaining unit work during the strike, finding the information potentially relevant to assessing the employer's motivation and economic justification for its bargaining positions.

The Board directed the documents be deposited with the Registrar to facilitate examination and potential enforcement proceedings.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer breached a written settlement of an earlier unfair labour practice complaint by failing to pay agreed-upon compensation to three reinstated employees.

The employer argued the settlement was void because the employees resigned shortly after returning to work, which contravened the employer's unexpressed expectation of stability.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the clear, unambiguous terms of a written settlement cannot be repudiated based on unstated expectations or subsequent events not addressed in the agreement.

The Board directed the employer to pay the specified sums.

The complainant union alleged the respondent employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The employer raised preliminary objections regarding lack of particularity and delay, which the Board dismissed or deferred.

During the hearing, the union sought to introduce evidence of private conversations between its representative and a Ministry of Labour mediator.

The Board ruled this evidence inadmissible, holding that communications with a mediator in the absence of the other party are confidential and protected under section 111(2) of the Labour Relations Act to preserve the integrity of the conciliation process.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent, Joe Franze Concrete Ltd., and A.J. Concrete Ltd. constituted one employer.

The Board found that while the two companies were engaged in similar concrete work, A.J.C.'s business activity was negligible and posed no real threat to the union's bargaining rights.

Furthermore, granting the application would impose union representation on J.F.C.'s employees against their unexpressed wishes.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to treat the companies as one employer and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred between Arbis Construction Ltd. and Tony Azar Construction, and that they constituted one employer.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the reverse onus provisions in the Act violated section 11 of the Charter.

The Board dismissed the Charter challenge, finding the provisions were merely evidentiary.

On the merits, the Board found that Arbis, an insolvent general contractor, and Azar, a newly formed masonry business, were neither associated or related in their activities nor under common control or direction.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Board for arbitration.

At the hearing, the applicants argued that a binding settlement had been reached between counsel prior to the hearing.

The respondent argued that its supervisor lacked the authority to instruct counsel to settle without the president's approval.

The Board held that where counsel holds themselves out as having authority to settle, and the other party has no notice of any limitation on that authority, the settlement is binding.

The Board found that a settlement was reached and ordered its implementation.

The complainant school board alleged that a mass resignation by summer school principals, vice-principals, and curriculum resource teachers constituted an unlawful strike under the Labour Relations Act, and that the teachers' union encouraged it.

The union had issued a 'pink letter' advising members not to accept summer positions due to a collective bargaining impasse.

The Board found that the resignees were employees who had already commenced preparatory duties, and their coordinated resignations to exert bargaining pressure amounted to an unlawful strike.

The Board issued a cease and desist direction against the union and its District 16 president for counselling and supporting the unlawful strike.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the discharge and lay-off of the grievor.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the grievances had been settled orally prior to the hearing.

The evidence showed that the union and employer had reached an oral agreement on all substantive terms, which the grievor initially accepted but later repudiated by refusing to sign the written minutes of settlement.

The Board held that a binding oral settlement had been reached and that the execution of written minutes was merely procedural.

Consequently, the Board found the grievances were no longer arbitrable and dismissed them.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent nursing home was a successor employer following the transfer of a nursing home licence, patients, and land from a predecessor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the transaction constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, as the essential elements of the business, including the licence and the residents, were transferred to the successor.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union's Trial Board violated section 80(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act by finding him guilty of internal union charges and imposing penalties in retaliation for his filing of a financial statement complaint with the Board.

The Board first determined that the Trial Board members were persons acting on behalf of the trade union.

Applying the 'taint theory', the Board found that the Trial Board's decision on one set of charges was improperly influenced by the complainant's exercise of his statutory rights.

The Board ordered the rescission of the conviction, the five-year ban on participation, and the $1,000 fine associated with those charges.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Davis Textiles purchased the business of Josh Industries, which was in receivership, under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

Davis Textiles had assumed the lease of Josh Industries' vacant plant, purchased some of its sewing machines from the receiver, and hired some of its former employees who applied for jobs.

The Board found that Davis Textiles did not purchase the raw materials, finished goods, trade marks, or licenses of Josh Industries, and did not take over its workforce as such.

The Board concluded that the transaction did not constitute the sale of a business and dismissed the application.

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

The parties agreed to two separate bargaining units, one excluding mechanics and one excluding school bus drivers.

The Board expressed concern that this could result in undue fragmentation of the respondent's workforce.

The Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote using the first unit as the voting constituency, but permitted mechanics to cast segregated ballots.

A hearing was scheduled to follow the vote to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and address the respondent's request to bar the application.