Jules B. Bloch

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, based on the agreement of the parties.

If no request to proceed is made within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicant unions initiated a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding a work assignment.

Prior to the hearing, the responding Boilermakers union withdrew its underlying grievance claiming the disputed work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the jurisdictional dispute proceeding as moot, noting that the underpinning work assignment claim had been withdrawn.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (IU) had just cause to revoke the charters of the Ontario Provincial Conference (OPC) and several affiliated local unions.

The dispute arose after the OPC negotiated the removal of the IU dues check-off clause from the provincial ICI collective agreements and returned collected dues to its members, as part of a broader push for Canadian autonomy.

The Board found that while the IU had cause to be concerned and to investigate, it did not have just cause to revoke the charters without affording the OPC and the locals a full opportunity to explain and defend their actions.

The Board concluded that the IU acted unreasonably and without just cause under sections 147 and 149 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ironworkers and Millwrights filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of work by the general contractor, E.S. Fox Limited, for the installation of fabricated material forming part of an integrated material handling system.

The Boilermakers claimed the work based on their collective agreement and constitution.

The Board found that the area practice in Board Area 1 favoured the Ironworkers and Millwrights, and that this practice was open and notorious.

The Board upheld the employer's assignment of the work to equal numbers of Ironworkers and Millwrights performing all work functions interchangeably.

A second jurisdictional dispute involving the Sheet Metal Workers and Boilermakers was scheduled for a later date.

The applicant brought an application to terminate bargaining rights under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union raised a preliminary issue, arguing that the applicant was an owner, not an employee, and therefore lacked standing to bring the application.

The Board found that the applicant was the only person performing bargaining unit work and had availed himself of an owner/operator exemption under the collective agreement to save on remittances.

The Board concluded that the applicant was an owner and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought to set aside a representation vote held following the restructuring of the school board, alleging irregularities including inadequate posting of the notice of vote and locked doors at polling stations.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to inquire into the allegations under section 23(19) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board found that even if the allegations were true, the number of affected voters was too small to alter the outcome of the vote, and the results reflected the true wishes of the majority of the employees in the bargaining units.

The applicant, who was both the sole employee and the directing mind of the employer corporation, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The Board dismissed the application without a representation vote under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, finding that the application was employer-initiated.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that work performed by the responding party on a blast furnace was construction work and should have been performed under the ICI provincial agreement.

The responding party and intervenors argued the work was maintenance and properly performed under the General President's Maintenance Agreement.

The Board reviewed the scope of work, which involved extensive replacements and redesigns to bring a decommissioned furnace back into service.

The Board concluded that the totality of the work constituted repair and alteration, making it construction work subject to the ICI agreement.

The matter of damages was remitted to the parties.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that Westinghouse Canada Inc. was a successor or related employer to Westinghouse Electric Corporation.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application on the basis that the collective agreement relied upon by the union was limited to the United States and had no extraterritorial application in Ontario.

The Board found that the collective agreement was silent on geographic scope and contained provisions specific to American law.

As there was no evidence of intent or past practice applying the agreement outside the U.S., the Board held the agreement did not apply in Ontario.

The application was dismissed as there were no bargaining rights to preserve.

The applicant ironworkers brought a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work involving the off loading, rigging, moving, handling, fabrication, cutting, welding, fitting, bolting, and installation of removable steel molds and accompanying steel supports for an iron runner box at Algoma Steel.

The employer had assigned the work to the ironworkers, but the carpenters claimed jurisdiction.

The Board found that the core skills required for the work, including welding, cutting, and rigging structural steel, favoured the ironworkers.

The Board upheld the employer's assignment of the work to the ironworkers.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A vote was held and the ballots were segregated.

A preliminary issue arose regarding whether individuals holding a 'Pending Provisional C of Q' from the Ministry of Education and Training were entitled to be on the voting list.

The Board held that the certificate is proof that the employee is qualified to work at the electrical trade during the allowed time frame.

Therefore, individuals holding such certificates who were at work on the application date doing bargaining unit work are entitled to be on the voting list.

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 responding parties brought a preliminary motion to bar the applicant union's related and successor employer applications under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding parties argued that the union's prior application for certification in respect of one of the responding parties constituted an admission against interest that it did not hold existing bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the preliminary motion, holding that the Act permits a trade union to pursue certification and section 69/1(4) applications in the alternative, as they are not mutually exclusive and serve different remedial purposes.

The applicant unions filed grievances alleging that the responding employers violated the provincial collective agreement by failing to remit the proper contribution amounts to multi-employer benefit plans.

Following the enactment of an 8% retail sales tax on group insurance premiums, the employers took the position that their negotiated contribution amounts were tax-inclusive, effectively reducing the net amount remitted to the funds.

The employers argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to enforce a tax statute.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to interpret the collective agreement and held that the negotiated contribution amounts were exclusive of the retail sales tax.

The employers were required to pay the tax in addition to the full contribution amounts specified in the collective agreement.