Lee Shouldice

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the responding party general contractor violated a non-subcontracting clause by subcontracting work to a company not bound by the applicant's collective agreement.

The responding party and intervenor requested an adjournment to permit the filing of a jurisdictional dispute application, arguing the work was claimed by multiple trades.

The Board applied the Robertson Yates framework and granted the adjournment, finding that the dispute involved competing claims from three different trades and was more appropriately resolved as a jurisdictional dispute rather than a bilateral grievance arbitration.

Local 46 applied for certification of the employees of Elitrex Plumbing Ltd. Elitrex and Local 183 argued that a voluntary recognition agreement executed between them barred the application.

The Board found that Local 183 failed to establish it had majority support of the employees in the bargaining unit at the time the agreement was signed, as critical membership evidence was undated and unsupported by oral testimony.

Furthermore, the employer had interfered by expressing a preference for Local 183 to an employee.

The Board declared the voluntary recognition agreement invalid, terminating Local 183's bargaining rights and allowing Local 46's certification application to proceed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The responding party failed to file a timely response under the Board's Rules of Procedure, delivering it late and without a list of employees.

The applicant brought a preliminary motion to preclude the responding party from challenging the status of the persons who voted in the representation vote, relying on previous Board jurisprudence.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, distinguishing the prior case law because the responding party asserted that the individuals listed by the applicant were not its employees at all.

The Board held that it would be inappropriate to allow strangers to determine a certification application, and directed that the status issues be litigated.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act but failed to pay the ordered sum to the Director in trust or provide a letter of credit, and filed out of time.

Despite the Director's request to process the application while awaiting a letter of credit, the Board refused to proceed without confirmation of payment or a letter of credit, and without a formal request for an extension of time.

The Board directed the applicant to provide confirmation and request an extension by a specified date, failing which the application would be deemed abandoned.

The applicant union filed an application for certification naming two separate legal entities as the responding party.

The union did not file an accompanying application for a single employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that it was impossible to assess the forty percent membership threshold required by section 8(2) of the Act, as the applicant asserted there were only two employees in total between the two employers.

The Board dismissed the application as fundamentally flawed.

The applicant requested the suspension of an Occupational Health and Safety Inspector's order prohibiting children under 14 from its waste transfer stations, pending an appeal.

The applicant argued that exceptions under the Industrial Establishments Regulation applied.

The Board found a strong prima facie case that the order ignored regulatory exceptions, but declined to suspend the order due to potential safety risks to the public and workers, and the applicant's failure to identify any prejudice from maintaining the order.

The applicants filed for a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act 50 days after the order, missing the 45-day deadline.

They secured irrevocable letters of credit satisfactory to the Director on the 50th day.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) to extend the time for filing the applications by 5 days, noting the short delay, the securing of the letters of credit, and a legitimate dispute regarding the quantum of the Order to Pay.

The two appeals were ordered to be heard together.

The Iron Workers filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of window and curtain wall installation work at a nursing home project.

The general contractor, PCL, subcontracted the work to AGS, who assigned it to members of the Glaziers union.

The Iron Workers argued that PCL was the 'employer' assigning the work and was bound by a subcontracting clause in their collective agreement.

The Board held that the subcontractor, AGS, was the 'employer' for the purposes of section 99(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Considering employer and area practice, the Board upheld AGS's assignment of the work to the Glaziers and dismissed the application.

The applicant local unions applied under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent international union violated section 150 by refusing to recognize the locals' right to appoint trustees to the Canadian pension plan.

The Board found that the Canadian Plan was a separate plan from the American Plan and constituted an 'employment benefit plan' under section 150.

The Board declared that the international union violated section 150 by refusing to accept the right of the applicant local unions to appoint trustees, and determined that the locals were entitled to appoint 58.33% of the trustees.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 applied for certification of a bargaining unit of plumbers, plumbers' apprentices, and construction labourers employed by Rolan Plumbing in the non-ICI construction sector.

The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Local 46 intervened, arguing that individuals performing plumbing work without proper certification under the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act (TQAA) could not be included in the bargaining unit as construction labourers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the TQAA applies to non-ICI certification applications and that individuals performing plumbing work in contravention of the TQAA cannot be characterized as construction labourers.

Consequently, such individuals are excluded from the list of employees for the purpose of the certification application.

The union applied under section 43 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The parties had reached an impasse over the employer's insistence on an 'elect to work' scheduling model, which the employer claimed was necessary to remain competitive in the home care market.

The Board found that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful due to the uncompromising nature of the employer's position without reasonable justification, particularly given the employer's refusal to provide financial data to substantiate its claims of competitive necessity.

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

The applicants, two construction trade unions, applied for certification to represent their respective trades in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector and all other sectors of the construction industry in Board Area 3.

The parties disagreed on the appropriate bargaining unit descriptions, particularly regarding the exclusion of pre-existing bargaining rights held by the Power Workers' Union (PWU) and the applicants' own rights in the electrical power systems sector.

The Board determined that the electrical power systems sector bargaining rights should be excluded by reference to the specific collective agreements rather than the sector itself.

The Board found the Labourers' proposed bargaining unit appropriate with slight amendments, but rejected the U.A.'s proposed unit because it inappropriately sought to incorporate a jurisdictional accord that the employer had not agreed to.

The Ironworkers filed a work assignment dispute regarding the installation of interlocking safety screen fencing at an auto parts plant.

The work was initially assigned to the Ironworkers by the employer, State, but was later reassigned to the Millwrights.

The Board considered employer practice, area practice, and trade agreements.

Finding that the operations of Canal Contractors were sufficiently integrated with State to consider Canal's practice as State's practice, the Board concluded that employer practice strongly favoured the Ironworkers.

The Board declared that the work in dispute ought to have been assigned to members of the Ironworkers.

The applicant union sought a pre-hearing production order requiring the responding party, Tower Steel Company Ltd., to produce a list of its clients and suppliers in relation to applications under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party resisted production, arguing the application was unfounded.

The Board found the requested information arguably relevant to the issues of related employer status and potential erosion of bargaining rights.

The Board ordered production of the list but imposed restrictions, including that the list be used solely for the proceedings and that the businesses and individuals named only be contacted through the applicant's counsel.

The applicant trade union requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its previous decision confirming a work assignment made by the employer.

The applicant argued that the Board departed from previous policy regarding jurisdictional disputes and unfair labour practices, and that it was denied natural justice because it was allegedly precluded from making certain submissions during the consultation.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that it had not departed from policy and that the applicant had been provided a full opportunity to make its submissions during the consultation process.

The traditional test for reconsideration was not met.

The applicant Boilermakers and the responding party Labourers' disputed the assignment of work involving the removal of a convection oil heater at a plant in Sarnia.

The employer had assigned the majority of the work to the Boilermakers.

The Board considered area practice, employer practice, and skill and ability, finding that the work was performed in an 'operating environment' which favoured the Boilermakers due to safety concerns.

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

The employer filed an application regarding a work assignment dispute after a union filed a grievance over the repair of a chiller unit.

Prior to the scheduled consultation, the union withdrew its grievance and conceded the work was properly assigned.

Another union involved in the dispute argued the Board was still required to hold a consultation to determine broader work assignment issues.

The Board held that it is not required to convene an oral consultation when there is no longer a live dispute between the parties, and dismissed the application.

The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision awarding damages to the union for unpaid wages and remittances under a construction industry collective agreement.

The employer argued it was denied natural justice because the union's grievance referral lacked particulars and the Board relied on hearsay evidence.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the employer had ample opportunity to obtain particulars during pre-hearing meetings but chose not to attend the settlement meeting or the hearing.

The Board held that the employer failed to exercise reasonable diligence and that the hearsay evidence was properly admitted given the employer's failure to defend the claim.

The applicant Carpenters' union filed a jurisdictional dispute concerning the assignment of the carpentry portion of concrete forming work on a water pollution control centre project.

The work had been assigned by the subcontractor to members of the Labourers' union.

The Carpenters argued this violated a prior 'Peace Treaty' and section 162 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the Labourers' Provincial ICI agreement validly covered construction labourers performing carpentry work, and that the employer's practice and collective agreement obligations strongly favoured the assignment to the Labourers.

The Board confirmed the employer's work assignment.

The Carpenters union filed a work assignment complaint regarding the tending of carpenters at a construction project at Algoma Steel.

The general contractor had assigned the formwork to the Carpenters, with the Labourers tending.

The Carpenters argued they should tend themselves.

The Board considered employer practice, area practice, trade agreements, collective agreement obligations, economy and efficiency, and skill and safety.

Finding that tending is at the core of the Labourers' work jurisdiction and that safety and efficiency factors also favoured the Labourers, the Board upheld the assignment of the work to the Labourers.