J. Trim

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer, which installs and maintains cellular phone antennae and support structures.

The respondent raised a preliminary constitutional objection, arguing its operations were integral to federal telecommunications undertakings (Bell Cellular and Cantel) and thus subject to federal labour relations jurisdiction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the test from Northern Telecom and found that the respondent's day-to-day operations were extensively integrated with and vital to the functioning of the federal cellular networks.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the respondent's labour relations fell within federal jurisdiction and dismissed the applications for lack of jurisdiction.

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 union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent general contractor violated the Provincial ICI Agreement by subcontracting electrical work to a non-union contractor.

The respondent argued it was not bound by the 1962 working agreement, asserting it was signed without authority, under duress, or was an invalid pre-hire agreement since the respondent never directly hired electricians.

The respondent alternatively argued the union had abandoned any bargaining rights.

The Board held the 1962 working agreement was validly executed, constituted a series of voluntary recognition agreements, and was not abandoned.

The grievance was upheld.

The complainant filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of pneumatic instrumentation work.

During the hearing, the respondent union brought several motions.

The Board dismissed motions alleging the panel was compromised and that the issues were res judicata.

However, the Board granted the respondent's motion to prevent the complainant from amending its complaint to seek a remedy affecting electronic instrumentation work.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act because no demand had been made for the electronic work, and alternatively, the amendment request was untimely and would fundamentally alter the case.

The applicant unions requested reconsideration of a Board decision dismissing their applications for certification in the construction industry.

The Board had ruled that membership evidence in one local could not be used to support an application by another local, and questioned the sufficiency of certain membership documents.

The Board held that the submitted membership documents, which consisted of a 1967 application and a recent certificate not signed by the employee, did not meet the Board's requirements for proof of membership.

Furthermore, the Board confirmed its long-standing practice that evidence of membership in one local cannot support an application brought by another local, even under the province-wide bargaining scheme in the ICI sector.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The Labourers' Union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the operation of heavy machinery on a demolition project.

The Operating Engineers raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because they had not required the employer to assign the work to them.

The Board found that the Operating Engineers had made an explicit demand to the subcontractor, Greenspoon, for the work in question, both during a meeting and in a private conversation.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the preliminary objection, concluding it had jurisdiction to consider the complaint.

The employer and the Sheet Metal Workers' union reached a settlement regarding a grievance and sought leave to withdraw the grievance and the related jurisdictional dispute complaint.

The Plumbers' union (Local 46), which was not a party to the settlement, objected to the withdrawal of the jurisdictional dispute complaint and argued it should proceed to adjudication.

The Board held that since the underlying grievance had been resolved, there was no continuing conflict necessitating the adjudication of the work assignment.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to inquire further into the complaint merely to issue a declaratory order regarding trade jurisdiction.

Leave to withdraw both the complaint and the grievance was granted.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Boilermakers and the Labourers regarding demolition work, the Labourers sought to adduce viva voce evidence on a preliminary basis to challenge the Board's earlier ruling on the parameters of admissible past practice evidence.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that it has inherent jurisdiction to determine the relevance of evidence without first hearing it, and that evidence regarding the demolition of structures other than field-erected, steam-generating boilers in an operating environment is irrelevant to the specific work in dispute.

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 applicant sought to introduce a report and supplementary report prepared for the Ministry of Labour in 1980 by George W. Adams to show the mischief that existed prior to certain amendments to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent objected to their admissibility.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the reports were admissible for the purpose sought by the applicant.

The Board directed the parties to file written submissions on the probative value of the material.

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

The respondent argued it was not an employer in the construction industry, as the assembly of retail store displays was not construction work.

The Board found it unnecessary to decide whether the work was construction work.

Applying the 'majority of time' test, the Board determined that the two employees in question did not spend a majority of their time on the date of application performing the assembly and installation work.

As there were no employees in the proposed bargaining unit on the date of application, the application was dismissed.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Boilermakers and the Labourers over the demolition of a boiler, the Board convened a hearing to determine the scope of evidence of Area and Employer Practice to be admitted.

The Metropolitan Toronto Demolition Contractors Association Inc. sought status to intervene and requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting the Association's prior notice and failure to participate earlier.

On the evidentiary issue, the Board ruled that evidence would be limited to the dismantling of field-erected, steam-generating boilers for industrial application, originally erected using Boilermakers, in an operating environment in Ontario, as this constitutes the 'particular work' under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant employers' organization applied for accreditation in the construction industry under section 125 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant was a properly constituted employers' organization and that the proposed unit of employers was appropriate for collective bargaining.

The Board determined that the applicant represented a majority of the employers in the unit, who in turn employed a majority of the employees affected.

Although all statutory requirements for accreditation were met, the Board withheld the issuance of the certificate pending a determination on whether it would continue its practice of compiling a Final Schedule 'F' of employers.

The applicants filed applications for certification regarding masonry workers constructing an extension to the respondent's motel.

The respondent argued it was not the employer, claiming the workers were employed by an independent contractor, and alternatively that it did not operate a business in the construction industry.

The Board found that the purported contractor acted merely as the respondent's agent, making the respondent the true employer.

The Board further held that by undertaking the motel extension, the respondent was operating a business in the construction industry within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

The matter was referred for continuation of hearing on the remaining issue of whether the workers were independent contractors.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union challenged the list of employees filed by the employer, arguing that the three individuals on the list were not hired in accordance with the union security and hiring hall provisions of the collective agreement.

The Board found that the individuals were hired contrary to the collective agreement and, applying the April Waterproofing principle, concluded they were not properly included in the bargaining unit.

As a result, less than forty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had voluntarily signified they no longer wished to be represented by the union, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification for a unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent.

A group of objecting employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board found that the petition was not a voluntary statement of desire, as it was circulated by an employee during working hours and signed by a foreman who directed another employee to sign it.

Given the perceived management involvement, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted the certification based on the union's membership evidence.