J. Redshaw

The Labourers' union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of tending work for carpenters erecting and dismantling scaffolding.

The employer, Doug Chalmers Construction Limited, argued it should have discretion to assign the work based on economy and efficiency.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors, finding that employer and area practice, along with a prior trade agreement, favoured the Labourers' claim.

The Board ordered the employer to assign at least one construction labourer to tend carpenters on all scaffolding jobs in issue, while retaining discretion to assign additional labourers as needed.

One Board member dissented, emphasizing the employer's right to assign work based on cost and efficiency.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision that declared a sale of business had occurred.

The applicant argued that the Board erred by failing to set out the parties' arguments and the case law in its decision.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, finding that it had provided a seven-page decision setting out the relevant facts and applying the law, which more than met its obligations under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to provide adequate reasons.

The Board noted that in cases where the law is settled and outcomes apparent, it will err on the side of brevity to fulfill its goal of timely decision-making.

In an application for certification, the respondent university requested that faculty members on sabbatical and unpaid leave be permitted to vote by mail-in ballot.

The applicant faculty association opposed the request.

A majority of the Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, citing the administrative burden and the statutory mandate for quick representation votes under Bill 7.

The Board held that mail-in ballots are generally only ordered in limited circumstances, such as when employees are dispersed far from the employer's premises or upon agreement of the parties.

Board Member Laing dissented, arguing that denying affected employees the opportunity to vote thwarts their democratic rights.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding her authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The union sought conciliation for a bargaining unit covering all sectors except the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector.

The employer objected, arguing it had no employees in the residential sector and had only ever worked in the ICI and road/bridge sectors.

The Board advised the Minister that she has the authority to appoint the conciliation officer.

The Board noted that in the construction industry, a union does not abandon its bargaining rights merely because the employer is inactive in certain sectors, and the 'spent certificate' theory does not apply to extinguish rights in sectors where the employer has no employees.

The applicant employers' organization filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding trade unions bargained in bad faith by pressing to impasse a demand that the applicant's members contribute to an industry fund operated by a rival employers' organization.

The Board found that the trade unions' insistence on this provision as a condition to end a strike interfered with the administration of the applicant and provided improper support to the rival organization, contrary to section 71 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board concluded that pressing this demand to impasse constituted a failure to bargain in good faith under section 17.

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

The employer argued the union had abandoned its bargaining rights obtained through a 1963 voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board found that the employer failed to rebut the presumption against abandonment, noting the employer's agreement that the union never intended to abandon its rights.

The Board declared the employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A representation vote was held, but the ballots were segregated due to disputes over voter eligibility.

The employer argued that four employees who were not at work on the application date because they took 'lieu time' should be eligible to vote, urging the Board to depart from its established 'date of application' policy.

The Board reviewed its historical approach and the purposes of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, concluding that the transient nature of the construction industry still justified restricting voter eligibility to those at work on the application date.

The Board also determined that a disputed individual was hired prior to the application date and was therefore an eligible voter.

A dissenting Board member would have allowed the four employees to vote.

The applicant union filed a complaint regarding a work assignment dispute.

The responding union raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the matter had already been decided by an arbitrator under the Plan for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, to which all parties were bound.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board agreed, finding that the applicant was bound by the Plan's decision through its collective agreement.

Applying the doctrine of issue estoppel, the Board exercised its discretion under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to decline to inquire further into the complaint, emphasizing the policy of deferring to private dispute resolution mechanisms agreed to by the parties.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the ICI Provincial Agreement, alleging that the responding employer improperly assigned construction work as maintenance work.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that the union had already submitted the same dispute to the alternative dispute resolution mechanism under the General Presidents' Agreement (GPA), which resulted in a final and binding decision.

The Board upheld the preliminary motion, finding that the union had initiated the GPA grievance process and fully participated in it.

The Board concluded that it would be unfair to allow the union to re-litigate the issue after receiving an unfavourable decision from the GPA panel, and terminated the proceeding.

The applicant employers' association applied for accreditation to represent employers engaged in low-rise concrete forming in the residential sector.

The applicant and the responding union agreed on the bargaining unit description.

Intervenor employer associations argued the unit should be broader, encompassing all employers bound by various residential sector collective agreements, to reflect contemporaneous bargaining practices.

The Board found that the proposed unit reflected the existing, stable bargaining structure and was viable for collective bargaining.

The Board determined the proposed unit was appropriate and directed notice to employers.

The applicants sought an order confirming the assignment of hand digging and backfilling work at the base of transmission towers to members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1788.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059, claimed the work should have been assigned to its members.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board confirmed the assignment to the IBEW, finding that the digging and backfilling functions were not severable from the other functions performed by the IBEW crew.

Assigning the work to the Labourers would result in serious inefficiencies, as the digging and backfilling constituted only a minor portion of the overall work.

A dissenting board member would have required further written submissions to clarify the description of the work.

The applicant union alleged that the responding employer unlawfully used replacement workers during a strike, contrary to section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding a technical error in the corporate name on the Minister's 'No Board' report, which the Board dismissed, finding the employer had received and acted upon the notice.

On the main issue, the union had conducted a single strike vote among all its members who worked in the sector, rather than limiting the vote to the employees of the responding employer, with whom it was bargaining individually.

The Board held that under section 73.1(2), when an employer bargains individually outside the ICI sector and without accreditation, only the votes of that specific employer's employees may be counted to determine if the required 60 percent authorization was achieved.

Because the union could not establish that 60 percent of the responding employer's employees authorized the strike, the preconditions of section 73.1 were not met, and the application failed.

The applicant Millwrights filed a complaint concerning the assignment of work involving the installation of flumes at a Ford engine plant.

The work was performed exclusively by Ironworkers employed by Victoria Steel, which was bound by a collective agreement with the Ironworkers but not the Millwrights.

The Millwrights sought a declaration and order that 50% of the work be assigned to their members, relying on previous Board decisions regarding material handling systems.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding it had no jurisdiction to bind a contractor to such an order where the applicant union does not have a collective agreement with the employer.

The union applied for certification of a craft bargaining unit of sheet metal workers.

The employer argued that three individuals should be excluded from the unit because their Certificates of Qualification had lapsed for non-payment of fees on the application date.

The Board held that the individuals were functionally journeymen who had completed the required training and that the regulatory agency's practice was to allow renewal upon payment of fees without prohibiting work.

The Board concluded the individuals were 'journeymen sheet metal workers' for the purpose of the bargaining unit determination and issued the certificates.

The applicant filed a complaint against his union under the Labour Relations Act, alleging various contraventions related to his termination.

He had previously filed a reprisal complaint against his employer under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, which the Board dismissed after finding his termination for absenteeism was lawful and reasonable.

The Board dismissed the current complaint without a hearing, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the propriety of his discharge and that the allegations did not make out an arguable case against the union.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer refused to meet to bargain and prohibited all union communication at the workplace.

The employer had refused to bargain pending its request for reconsideration of the union's interim certification.

The Board found an arguable case that the employer's conduct violated the Act and that the balance of harm favoured the union.

The Board ordered the employer to meet with the union to bargain in good faith and to permit the posting of union notices in the workplace.

The applicant union alleged that the responding employers' association breached a subcontracting clause in their collective agreement.

The clause required the association to subcontract bricklaying only to companies in contractual relations with the applicant or another specific union, provided the two unions formed a 'common Union' by a specified deadline.

The unions formed a certified council of trade unions to meet this requirement.

The Board held that a certified council of trade unions did not constitute a 'common Union' within the meaning of the agreement, as the two unions maintained separate legal and practical existences.

Consequently, the subcontracting clause expired.

The Labourers filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work involving the fabrication, installation, and dismantling of wooden bulkheads for 'superflat' concrete floors at a Toyota plant expansion.

The general contractor, bound by both Labourers and Carpenters provincial agreements, subcontracted the work to a company bound only to the Labourers.

The Board held a consultation and orally ruled that the work belonged to the Carpenters, based on area practice in the ICI sector.

The Labourers and the subcontractor requested reconsideration, arguing a denial of natural justice because the Board did not hold a full oral hearing or allow viva voce evidence.

The Board denied the reconsideration request, finding that the extensive written materials filed were sufficient to determine the dispute under the expedited procedures of section 93 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant, a teacher, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that section 2(1)(f) of the Act explicitly excludes teachers.

The applicant argued that this exclusion violated section 7 of the Charter by depriving him of the right to hold his union accountable, which he claimed affected his right to practice his profession.

The Board rejected the Charter argument, holding that section 7 does not protect economic interests or the right to engage in a particular profession.

The applicant trade union sought declarations under section 64 and subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that several corporate responding parties constituted a single employer and were bound by the provincial collective agreement.

Several responding parties failed to file responses or produce documents as ordered by the Board.

The Board drew adverse inferences from this failure.

The Board found that Gaspo, Central Forming, Ashworth, and Pamina carried on related activities under common control or direction and declared them to be one employer bound by the collective agreement.

The application was dismissed with respect to Altracon, as the Board found no common control or direction or sale of a business involving that entity.

The related employers were held jointly and severally liable for damages flowing from the current grievances, but not for past damages.