Jules Bloch

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 applicants brought jurisdictional dispute applications regarding the assignment of work for the fabrication and installation of a monorail at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1000 raised a preliminary constitutional challenge, arguing that labour relations at the nuclear facility fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Board applied the functional test and determined that while the production of nuclear energy and its attendant safety concerns are within federal jurisdiction, the fabrication and installation of the monorail is not integral to the federal undertaking.

Having found it had jurisdiction, the Board directed Ontario Hydro to assign the work to the applicants based on collective agreements and historical practice.

The applicant union brought related employer and sale of business applications, as well as a construction industry grievance, against several electrical contracting companies controlled by a single key principal.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion alleging reasonable apprehension of bias because the panel had previously attempted to mediate the dispute at the parties' request.

The Board dismissed the bias motion, finding the parties had consented to the mediation-arbitration process.

On the merits, the Board found that the principal was the key person in all the companies, which were engaged in related activities under common control and direction.

The Board declared that a sale of business had occurred and that the companies constituted one employer bound by the provincial collective agreement, but limited the retrospective effect of the declaration due to the union's delay.

The applicant union filed unfair labour practice complaints against the responding party, a successor employer providing security services.

The responding party brought preliminary motions to dismiss the complaints, arguing that the union's three-and-a-half month delay in filing prejudiced its ability to defend the claims, and that the statutory freeze under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act did not apply because it had not received formal Board notice of the certification application prior to the successorship.

The Board dismissed the delay motion, finding the delay was short and any prejudice could be addressed remedially.

The Board also dismissed the notice motion, interpreting section 64(3) of the Act to mean that the statutory freeze environment flows through to the successor employer regardless of whether it received formal Board notice.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of all full-time meat department employees of the responding party.

The responding party argued that the proposed unit was no longer a 'craft' unit under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act, claiming the employees no longer exercised technical skills distinguishing them from other employees.

The Board found that the meat cutters and wrappers continued to exercise technical skills and constituted a craft unit.

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

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional complaint regarding the assignment of work for the installation of a local area network computer system at a nuclear generating station.

The employer had assigned the work to the responding union's members, who were maintenance workers, rather than the applicant's members, who were construction electricians.

The Board determined that the work constituted construction rather than maintenance, and that the applicant's members possessed the requisite skill and ability.

The Board concluded that the correct assignment of the work in dispute was to the applicant union.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the respondent bank's failure to abide by a provincial collective agreement during the construction of a bank branch.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the construction of banks falls within exclusive federal jurisdiction over banking.

The Board applied a functional test and determined that the construction of a bank building is a pre-operational task and not an integral part of the core banking function.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the preliminary objection, found it had jurisdiction to hear the grievance, and directed the matter to be re-listed for hearing.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and intervener union requested the Board defer consideration of the grievance to allow the filing of a jurisdictional dispute under section 93.

The applicant opposed deferral, arguing that the respondent and intervener did not have a bargaining relationship.

The Board found that the contractual matters were intertwined with work assignment matters, and that the jurisdictional dispute forum was the proper venue to address the issues, even if a collective agreement did not exist between the contractor and the trade assigned the work.

The Board adjourned the grievance and allowed any party to file a jurisdictional dispute within 14 days.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued it had no employees in the unit, asserting the individuals were independent contractors or dependent contractors who employed helpers, thereby making them independent contractors.

The Board examined the relationship between the respondent and various piecework crews.

It found that some crews were independent contractors, while others were dependent contractors.

The Board held that the use of a helper by a pieceworker to meet the respondent's deadlines, rather than for entrepreneurial profit, did not preclude a finding of dependent contractor status.

The Board directed the issuance of certificates to the applicant.

The applicants referred grievances to the Board under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent failed to employ their members for work on a cargo vessel.

The respondent argued the work was performed by its Marine Division under different collective agreements and was not construction work.

The Board held it has jurisdiction under section 126 to hear grievances arising from construction industry collective agreements, regardless of whether the specific work is deemed construction.

The Board also denied intervener status to another union that claimed the work but had not filed a jurisdictional dispute, finding it had no legal right to participate in the grievance proceedings.