J. Kurchak

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred from Inplant Contractors Inc. to Flint Canada and Flint USA, or alternatively, that the companies were related employers under common control and direction.

Inplant, a unionized company, went into receivership, and its former officer and a key employee subsequently worked for the newly formed Flint Canada.

The Board found that Flint Canada was established to serve the pre-existing business of Flint USA, not to acquire Inplant's business.

The Board concluded that the hiring of the former Inplant personnel did not constitute a sale of a business.

Furthermore, the Board found that Inplant and Flint Canada were not under common control and direction.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant unions filed grievances alleging that the responding party violated the Mainline Pipeline Agreement by failing to apply it to the manufacture and supply of concrete from a permanent batching plant in Cochrane.

The concrete was supplied to a contractor manufacturing concrete weights for a pipeline project.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the manufacture and supply of concrete from a permanent facility is not construction work covered by the Pipeline Agreement, distinguishing it from portable batching plants used on-site.

One Board Member dissented in part regarding the Teamsters' agreement.

During a union certification campaign, the respondent employer alleged that an employee did not pay the required one dollar for union membership, claiming a union organizer paid it instead.

The employee testified she paid the dollar, but admitted to making prior inconsistent statements suggesting she had not.

The Board declined to rely on the prior inconsistent statements as evidence of the truth of their contents, finding them unreliable and noting the general legal rule against such reliance.

With no affirmative evidence that the dollar was not paid, the Board dismissed the non-pay allegation.

The applicant union filed an application for certification in the construction industry and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

Following the vote, disputes arose regarding voter eligibility.

The Board determined that 31 employees were eligible to vote, and the vote resulted in 30 votes for the intervener and none for the applicant.

The applicant also filed a second application for certification and requested consolidation, section 8 relief, and reconsideration of voter eligibility rulings, all of which the Board denied.

The respondent and intervener requested a bar on the second application, which the Board also denied.

As the applicant did not receive more than fifty percent of the votes, the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for a direction to arbitrate a first collective agreement.

The parties had reached an impasse in negotiations, primarily over the union's proposal for a union shop provision and the employer's proposal allowing foremen to perform bargaining unit work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's uncompromising positions on these issues were taken without reasonable justification and reflected an underlying refusal to recognize the union's bargaining authority.

The Board directed the arbitration of the first collective agreement.

The applicants filed complaints regarding a work assignment dispute, alleging unfair labour practices under section 89 and seeking enforcement of a jurisdictional dispute settlement under section 91(14) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing the section 89 complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case and the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14).

The Board dismissed the section 89 complaint, finding it was essentially a work assignment dispute.

However, the Board held it had jurisdiction to entertain the section 91(14) complaint because the Plan Administrator had made a clear decision.

The Board deferred consideration of the section 91(1) complaint until the section 91(14) matter was resolved.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, alleging the respondent employer breached the Teamsters provincial agreement by failing to apply its provisions to dump truck drivers hauling excavated material on and from a construction site.

The parties asked the Board to determine a preliminary question: assuming the project falls within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, is hauling excavated material on and from the project covered by the provincial agreement?

The Board majority held that the drivers were 'teamsters engaged on on-site construction' within the Ministerial designation, and therefore fell within the scope of the provincial agreement, even when hauling material to off-site locations.

One Board member dissented.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance and applied for a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against three corporate respondents and an individual.

The parties agreed the corporate respondents met the statutory preconditions for a section 1(4) declaration, leaving the Board's discretion as the sole issue.

The Board found that a non-unionized company pre-existed a numbered company created with the union's knowledge to perform work on a specific unionized job site.

Finding no evidence that work destined for the unionized company was redirected to the non-union company to erode bargaining rights, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to issue the declaration and dismissed the applications.

The respondent employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the applicant union, arguing it did not receive timely notice of the application and thus failed to post notices to employees.

The Board found that the employer had in fact received the notice in a timely manner but failed to open its mail or post the notices promptly.

The Board held that the employer could not rely on its own failure to post notices or file a timely reply to support its request for reconsideration, nor could it invoke the rights of employees who had not themselves complained of insufficient notice.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The intervener union raised its existing bargaining rights as a bar to the application.

The Board had to determine whether the respondent employer, which primarily performs soil and rock drilling for consulting engineering firms, was an employer in the construction industry.

The Board found that the respondent's work takes place well prior to the construction process and is not done in connection with an ongoing construction project.

Consequently, the respondent was not engaged in a business in the construction industry, and the application was dismissed.