J. P. Wilson

The applicant trade union was previously certified to represent construction labourers employed by the respondent in all sectors, including the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

In a subsequent decision involving the same applicant, the Board determined that the applicant was an affiliated bargaining agent and therefore could not lawfully represent employees in the ICI sector except in specific trades, nor could it enter into a collective agreement for the ICI sector.

The Board reconsidered its original decision in this case based on written submissions.

The Board found that the original certificate authorized the applicant to do something unlawful.

As there were no employees outside the ICI sector on the application date, no appropriate bargaining unit existed.

The Board exercised its discretion to revoke the certificate.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer and Ministry of Health representatives violated sections 66 and 67(1) of the Labour Relations Act by bargaining directly with employees regarding terms for an Advanced Life Support Pilot Program and penalizing them for exercising their union rights.

The Board found that the work performed in the pilot program was outside the scope of the bargaining unit.

Consequently, the communications regarding terms and conditions for the program did not constitute direct bargaining in violation of the Act.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent plumbers and steamfitters employed by the respondent in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The respondent employer requested that 'gas fitters' be explicitly included in the bargaining unit description, arguing they shared a community of interest and worked integrally with the plumbers and steamfitters.

The Board held that under section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act, it could not describe a bargaining unit in the ICI sector that included trades or employees not covered by the relevant designation orders and provincial agreement.

Since gas fitters were not covered by the plumbers' and steamfitters' designation or provincial agreement, they could not be included in the bargaining unit.

The applicant sought reconsideration of the Board's decision dismissing its complaint and applications after it failed to attend a continuation hearing.

The applicant argued its absence was due to the Board's failure to issue a formal notice of hearing for the continuation date.

The Board held that a formal notice is not required for a continuation date when parties were informed of the date at the initial hearing, and found the applicant's unmet expectation did not justify its failure to attend.

A grievance was referred to the Board concerning an employer's refusal to employ a sheet metal worker referred through the union hiring hall.

The worker had a prior compensable back injury and the employer's last information from the Workers' Compensation Board indicated he was only fit for modified work.

The employer refused to allow the worker on a heavy industrial job site without updated medical clearance.

The Board held that, analogous to an industrial setting, the employer had reasonable grounds to require medical clearance before allowing the worker to perform unrestricted duties, and dismissed the grievance.

The applicant union filed an application for certification in the construction industry using Form 75, but requested a pre-hearing representation vote, which normally requires Form 1 under section 90 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board applied section 84 of the Rules, which states that no proceeding is invalid by reason of a defect in form, and decided to process the application as if it had been made in the proper form.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to confer with the parties, examine records, and make arrangements for a potential vote.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking unpaid vacation pay for five employees.

The respondent subcontractor argued that the general contractor, Konvey Construction, should be liable because the respondent had signed an authorization directing Konvey to pay its obligations.

The Board held that the arrangement between the respondent and Konvey did not affect the respondent's obligations to the union and its members under the provincial agreement.

The Board directed the respondent to pay the agreed amounts of vacation pay.

The complainant filed a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent trade union violated sections 68, 69, and 70 regarding his employment at a uranium mine.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing pursuant to section 71(1) of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

Relying on the precedent in Pronto Uranium Mines Ltd., the Board determined that the mining and concentrating of uranium ore falls within federal jurisdiction, and therefore the provincial Board lacked jurisdiction to deal with the matter.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the grievor was discharged without just cause.

The employer terminated the grievor for failing to report his absence for three consecutive days, pursuant to a company rule.

The grievor had been injured at work prior to the absences and had reported sick on the first day, but failed to provide an expected return date or report on subsequent days.

The Board found that while the grievor breached the reporting rule, discharge was too severe a penalty given the employer's knowledge of his recent workplace injury.

The Board exercised its discretion to substitute the discharge with a six-week suspension without pay.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for plumbers and steamfitters employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The respondent consented to the application being disposed of without a hearing but argued that certification would violate his mobility rights under section 6(2)(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by impairing his ability to gain a livelihood.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected the Charter argument, finding that the Labour Relations Act is a law of general application that does not discriminate based on province of residence, and therefore falls within the limitation in section 6(3)(b) of the Charter.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board issued certificates for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic area.