J. Lear

The Ironworkers filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint against Ontario Hydro and the United Association regarding the assignment of work related to the removal and replacement of feedwater heaters at the Lakeview Thermal Generating Station.

The Board dismissed preliminary motions by the United Association to defer to The Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, and by the Ironworkers to enforce the 1958 Cooper-Connolly trade agreement, finding the latter had been validly repudiated in 1981.

On the merits, the Board relied primarily on employer and area past practice.

It directed that the fabrication and installation of the structural steel floor falsework deck and track runway be assigned to the Ironworkers.

The Board divided the signalling and rigging work between the two trades, assigning the handling of piping equipment using power equipment to the Ironworkers, and the lateral movement and final installation using tools of the trade to the United Association.

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 Plumbers' Union filed a work-assignment complaint under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the installation of washroom accessories at a hospital renovation project.

The general contractor, Pigott Construction Limited, had assigned the work to its own carpenters.

The Plumbers' Union relied on a 1965 international agreement between the Plumbers' and Carpenters' unions that assigned such work to the Plumbers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board upheld the complaint, finding that the 1965 agreement was valid and had been historically recognized in the area, and declared that the work should have been assigned to the Plumbers' Union.

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 applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties agreed that bargaining had broken down solely due to their respective positions, leaving the reasonableness of the employer's position as the only issue.

The employer insisted on a one-month loss of seniority provision for laid-off employees, which would effectively deny recall rights to its seasonal workforce.

The Board found this position to be uncompromising and without reasonable justification, noting the employer's reliance on administrative burden was unpersuasive given its computer systems.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The union applied for certification in the construction industry and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer laid off three employees due to union activity.

The Board found that petitions filed by employees opposing certification were not voluntary, as they followed a meeting where the employer implied future employment might be jeopardized by unionization.

The Board granted the certification and issued certificates.

However, the Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, accepting the employer's evidence that the three laid-off employees were not offered further work because they had previously indicated they did not want to continue working for the employer.

The applicant union sought a declaration that there was a sale of a business from Gallant Painting to Lindsay Maintenance under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

Gallant Painting ceased operations after being organized by the union.

Shortly after, Lindsay Maintenance, a mechanical maintenance contractor, hired the former owner of Gallant Painting to manage a newly created painting division.

The Board found that the essential elements of the maintenance painting business resided in the expertise and reputation of the former owner.

By hiring him, Lindsay Maintenance acquired the predecessor's key asset, enabling it to be placed on a major customer's bidder's list and obtain work.

The Board concluded this constituted a sale of a business and declared the union the bargaining agent for the painting division employees.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent employer improperly assigned the assembly of a metal meter shed to a mixed crew of carpenters and labourers instead of sheet metal workers.

The intervener union argued that the work was properly assigned based on established practice.

The Board determined that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute that should be dealt with under section 91 of the Act to allow all interested parties, including the unrepresented labourers' union, to participate.

The Board adjourned the section 124 application for 30 days to permit the filing of a jurisdictional dispute.

The Carpenters' Union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer and the Labourers' Union conspired to undermine its bargaining rights by assigning formwork to labourers instead of carpenters.

The Labourers' Union also applied for certification to displace the Carpenters' bargaining rights.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment rather than a derogation of bargaining rights, which should be resolved under the jurisdictional dispute provisions of the Act.

Regarding the certification application, the Board found that at least three persons were employed as carpenters on the application date, entitling the Labourers' Union to a pre-hearing vote.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer breached the collective agreement by employing non-union members to perform bargaining unit work.

The employer argued that following a corporate restructuring, the non-union employees became shareholders and directors, and thus fell within the 'owners and managers' exception in the collective agreement.

The Board found that the employees' duties remained unchanged and did not involve supervising the work of others.

The Board upheld the grievance, finding the employer in breach of the union security and hiring provisions of the collective agreement.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents, Agincourt and KNK, constituted one employer.

The principal of Agincourt, a unionized electrical contractor, ceased operations and shortly thereafter incorporated KNK, a non-union firm carrying on the same business.

The respondents conceded the legal requirements for a related employer declaration were met but argued the union's delay in bringing the application should bar relief.

The Board held that delay alone does not bar a section 1(4) declaration, as the provision is designed to prevent the erosion of bargaining rights through corporate restructuring.

However, given the union's delay, the Board granted the declaration but limited its retrospective effect to commercial activities entered into after the union filed the application.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the statutory freeze period under subsection 79(1) of the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally reducing the work week from five days to four, and then to three days, due to productivity concerns.

The employer argued the union was estopped from complaining because it did not explicitly object when informed of the changes.

The Board applied the reasonable expectations test and found that employees would not reasonably expect a reduction in hours due to productivity issues, especially when the issue was being negotiated.

The Board rejected the estoppel argument, holding that the statute strictly requires union consent for such changes.

The employer was ordered to compensate the affected employees.

The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement for part-time employees be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer conceded that collective bargaining had been unsuccessful and that it had adopted an uncompromising position regarding benefits.

The Board found that the employer lacked reasonable justification for its uncompromising stance, as its offer was not a 'cadillac' agreement and its fears of setting a precedent for full-time units were unfounded.

The Board directed the settlement of the first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties agreed to the settlement by arbitration of their first collective agreement pursuant to section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The primary issues in dispute were wages and retroactivity.

The employer proposed a wage grid with discretionary merit pay and a productivity bonus plan, while the union proposed a single rate for each classification.

The Board rejected the employer's discretionary merit and productivity plans as inappropriate for a legislated first collective agreement, but awarded a wage grid with a start rate and an increment upon completion of the 90-day probationary period.

The Board also awarded a retroactive payment of either a $350 lump sum or a calculated retroactive amount up to a maximum of $650.

The applicant union grieved that the respondent drywall contractor violated the subcontracting provisions of the ICI agreement by allowing a non-union supplier's employees to off-load and stockpile drywall on a construction project.

The Board first determined that the construction of the Home for the Aged fell within the ICI sector rather than the residential sector.

On the merits, the Board found that the delivery and unloading of drywall by the supplier's employees was not construction work covered by the ICI agreement, noting that the union had a separate collective agreement with unionized suppliers covering this exact work.

The grievance was dismissed.

The complainant Ironworkers filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work involving the unloading, handling, and installation of tool rail (Hollywood Rail and Louden Rail) and support steel at a General Motors plant.

The employer had assigned the Hollywood Rail to the United Association (UA) and the support steel to a composite crew of UA and Ironworkers.

The Board considered criteria including collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, economy and efficiency, employer practice, and area practice.

The Board found that the area or industry practice favoured assigning the work to a composite crew of Ironworkers and Millwrights, rejecting the UA's argument that new technology (the A.G.V. system) or the 'end use' of the rail justified the assignment.

The Board directed the employer to assign the work to a composite crew of Ironworkers and Millwrights.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondents in the construction industry.

The respondents and the intervener argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should be the existing broader unit of all employees engaged in concrete forming construction, and that the applicant should not be permitted to carve out its craft.

The Board held that, consistent with its general practice in the construction industry and the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, a craft trade union is entitled to carve out its craft from an existing broader bargaining unit.

The Board found no compelling reason to depart from this practice and determined the appropriate bargaining unit accordingly.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The respondent employer raised two preliminary objections.

First, it argued the applicant's name did not match the certified trade union.

The Board found this to be a mere technical irregularity and amended the applicant's name.

Second, the respondent argued the application was premature due to pending reconsideration requests regarding the underlying certification.

The Board agreed that the chaotic situation created by the multiple proceedings and the applicant's own challenge to its representation rights needed to be resolved first.

The Board adjourned the application sine die pending the disposition of the other proceedings.

During a hearing, the employer sought to introduce a secretly tape-recorded telephone conversation between its vice-president and a union steward.

The union objected on the grounds that the steward was not an officer or agent of the union, and thus the conversation did not fall under the admissions against interest exception to the hearsay rule.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the steward was not acting within the scope of his stewardship or authorized to make admissions on behalf of the union.

The evidence was ruled inadmissible.

The applicant union brought applications under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of business and that the two respondent companies constituted a single employer.

The section 63 application was withdrawn.

The respondents conceded common control and direction.

The Board found that although the second company engaged in a broader scope of work than the first, both performed concrete construction work utilizing similar employee skills.

The Board concluded the entities engaged in associated or related activities and exercised its discretion to declare them one employer, binding the second company to the union's collective agreement.