J. Redshaw

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a unit of carpenters employed by the respondent.

The intervener trade union sought to participate, arguing it already represented the employees under existing collective agreements or, alternatively, had membership evidence for at least one affected employee.

The Board found the existing agreements did not cover carpenters but granted the intervener status based on membership evidence filed at the hearing.

The Board also held the respondent could not resile from a prior written agreement with the applicant regarding the list of employees in the bargaining unit, though the intervener remained free to challenge the list.

The applicant trade union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The Board found that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices during the organizing campaign, which chilled employee support.

During bargaining, the employer refused to provide the union with the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and wage rates of bargaining unit employees, and maintained uncompromising positions without reasonable justification.

The Board concluded that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful due to the employer's refusal to recognize the union's bargaining authority and its failure to make reasonable efforts to conclude an agreement.

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

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held but no ballots were cast because the employees were not on the job site.

The applicant union failed to object or request a new vote until almost three months later, well past the deadline.

The Board held that the test for timeliness of objections is whether, with reasonable diligence, the factual basis would not have come to the objector's attention before the deadline.

Finding that the applicant failed to exercise reasonable diligence, the Board denied the request for a new vote and dismissed the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote to displace the incumbent union.

The Board declined to adopt the bargaining unit description agreed upon by the applicant and respondent, finding it problematic and lacking the incumbent's agreement.

Instead, the Board defined the voting constituency based on the incumbent's existing collective agreement, excluding employees of contractors.

Finding that not less than 35 per cent of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant, the Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

A representation vote was held where the applicant was the sole voter and voted against the union.

The union challenged the vote, arguing the applicant was not eligible to vote as he had not worked in the ICI sector prior to the vote, and that a single employee was not representative of the workforce.

The Board dismissed the union's objections, finding no evidence to doubt the applicant's eligibility and confirming that a single employee can constitute a bargaining unit for the purpose of terminating bargaining rights.

The Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken, as it appeared that not less than thirty-five percent of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant.

The Board also addressed the test for determining voter eligibility for occasional teachers and deferred the issue of whether this application was a subsequent application under subsection 103(3) of the Labour Relations Act to the panel dealing with an earlier application.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent, an employer in the construction industry.

Both parties agreed that the appropriate bargaining unit should be described as 'all employees' rather than limited to specific trades on the date of application.

The Board noted its usual practice of restricting construction industry units to specific trades to avoid jurisdictional disputes.

However, because the employees performed both construction and non-construction work, the Board found that an 'all employees' unit was appropriate to prevent fragmentation and disruption.

The Board also accepted the parties' agreement to use the phrase 'at and out of' Bowmanville, given that employees worked at various job sites.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees were union members, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The union applied for certification and won a pre-hearing representation vote by a margin of one ballot.

The employer filed an untimely objection, arguing the vote should be set aside because a union supporter incorrectly told an eligible employee he could not vote, and that employee did not vote.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding the employer failed to meet the reasonable diligence test for extending the time limit.

The Board further noted that even if timely, the objection would fail because the employee had adequate official notice of his right to vote and the means to clarify his eligibility.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a 1973 decision and certificate of accreditation to amend the name of the accredited employers' organization, clarify the geographic scope, and exclude the low-rise part of the residential sector of the construction industry.

The Board found that the current bargaining structure, the consent of the respondent union, and the position of the Mechanical Contractors Association Toronto justified the variation.

The Board noted that the accredited employers' organization had abandoned its bargaining rights in respect of the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board varied the decision and certificate accordingly.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for a group of employers in the construction industry.

The Board found the applicant to be a properly constituted employers' organization with the necessary authority to act as an accredited bargaining agent.

The parties agreed on a bargaining unit description that segregated the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board determined that, given the existing pattern of collective bargaining and the abandonment of bargaining rights by other associations in this specific sub-sector, there were clear and compelling reasons to divide the residential sector.

The Board approved the agreed-upon unit of employers as appropriate for collective bargaining.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent journeymen sheet metal workers and registered apprentices employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued that the application should be treated under the general provisions of the Labour Relations Act rather than the construction industry provisions, as it primarily operated a custom steel fabricating shop and only one employee performed on-site installation full-time.

The Board found that the respondent operated a business in the construction industry and that the shop employees regularly spent a significant portion of their time doing on-site construction work.

The Board concluded that the employees were commonly associated in their work with the on-site employee and were properly included in the construction bargaining unit.

As the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board directed that certificates issue.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent construction labourers employed by the respondent in the ICI sector province-wide and in all other sectors in Board Area 5.

The respondent argued that because it employed construction labourers in Board Area 8, the union was required under section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act to include those employees in its proposed bargaining unit.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that section 144(1) permits but does not require a union to apply for more than one geographic area.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and referred disputes over the inclusion of specific individuals to a Labour Relations Officer.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent, an employer engaged in the fabrication and erection of structural steel.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing that because it operates in the construction industry, only a trade union pertaining to the construction industry under section 117(f) of the Labour Relations Act could apply.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the respondent and its employees fall within the construction industry provisions, section 144(5) and the general provisions of the Act permit a non-construction trade union to apply for certification outside the province-wide bargaining scheme.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's fish processing plant in Leamington, Ontario.

The respondent challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's constitutional jurisdiction, arguing its business was a federal undertaking under the federal fisheries or trade and commerce powers.

The Board held that fish processing is a local undertaking subject to provincial jurisdiction, as it is not an integral part of preserving fisheries as a natural resource, nor is it a core federal trade and commerce undertaking despite its extra-provincial trucking and export activities.

Finding that the union had the requisite membership support, the Board issued a final certificate.

The employer applied under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that the respondent union no longer represented the bargaining unit employees, arguing that 70% of the employees no longer wished to be represented by the union.

The union opposed the application, noting that it had not failed to bargain and had recently applied for conciliation.

The Board found that section 59 is designed to protect against a union that fails to exercise its bargaining rights, not to monitor union support.

The Board also declined to use its reconsideration powers under section 106(1) to terminate bargaining rights based on events occurring after certification, emphasizing the need for finality and stability in labour relations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for bricklayers and bricklayers' apprentices employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The respondent failed to file a reply.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support and determined the appropriate geographic area for the bargaining unit.

The Board granted the application and issued certificates for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector province-wide, and for all other sectors in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the United Counties of Prescott and Russell.

The complainant and several other employees were dismissed from their employment for refusing to become members of the union, as required by a union shop clause in the collective agreement.

The complainant alleged that the union and employer violated the Labour Relations Act by enforcing the clause and failing to provide sufficient particulars of the membership requirements.

The complainant also argued that compulsory union membership violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employees had reasonable notice and opportunity to join the union but simply refused to do so.

The Board also held that the Charter does not apply to private sector collective agreements.

The union applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter pending a representation vote on a termination application, with the arbitration to proceed if the union won the vote.

The union won the vote, and the Board proceeded to arbitrate the first contract.

The Board rejected the employer's argument that the contract should reflect the relative bargaining strengths of the parties or be based on final offer selection.

The Board determined the disputed terms, including union dues, jury duty, negotiating committee, holidays, health and welfare benefits, strikes and lockouts, wages, and working rules, imposing a collective agreement to be in effect until November 30, 1988.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent requested a hearing to defend its position under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but failed to provide any material facts or specify the Charter provisions relied upon, contrary to section 97 of the Rules of Procedure.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 102(14) of the Labour Relations Act to determine the application without a hearing.

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.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of journeymen and registered sheet metal apprentices.

The parties disputed whether three employees were 'registered sheet metal apprentices' under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act.

The Board held that an employee is only a registered apprentice if a Contract of Apprenticeship in the prescribed form has been filed with the Director.

Since the three employees had only filed applications for apprenticeship, they were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board also found a petition in opposition to the union to be voluntary and directed a representation vote.