Louisa M. Davie

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Millwrights and the U.A. over work on a paper making machine, the parties sought a preliminary ruling on the geographic scope of area past practice evidence.

The Millwrights argued for limiting evidence to the local Board area, while the U.A. argued for province-wide evidence due to the specialized nature of the work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that while past practice is typically limited to the local Board area, the unique nature of the work and the overlapping territorial jurisdictions of the two local unions warranted an expanded scope.

The Board restricted the evidence to Board areas 17, 19, 21, 22, and the adjacent white area.

In a certification application, the respondent requested that the matter proceed directly to a hearing before the Board rather than continuing with an examination by a Labour Relations Officer, citing the number of witnesses and anticipated issues of credibility.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, noting that credibility issues can usually be resolved by scrutinizing the verbatim transcript of the Officer's proceedings, and directed that the Officer's inquiry continue.

In an application for certification by the Operating Engineers, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the composition of the bargaining unit for the purposes of the count.

Applying the Gilvesey test, the Board examined the duties performed by several disputed individuals on the application date.

The Board found that certain mechanics and dependent contractors who spent a majority of their time performing bargaining unit work on the application date were included in the unit, while others who primarily performed labourers' work or worked outside the geographic area were excluded.

Having resolved the list of employees, the Board found the union had the requisite membership support and issued certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the relevant geographic area.

In an application for termination of bargaining rights, a representation vote was held and two ballots were segregated because the employees had been discharged prior to the application.

The discharged employees had grieved their terminations, with arbitration pending.

The applicant and the employer argued the ballots should not be counted or a new vote should be held, while the union argued the Board should await the arbitration outcome.

The majority of the Board directed that the disposition of the termination application must await the outcome of the arbitration proceedings to ensure the result reflects the true wishes of the employees.

A dissenting member would have discarded the segregated ballots and disclosed the vote results immediately.

The respondent employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the applicant union, arguing it did not receive timely notice of the application and thus failed to post notices to employees.

The Board found that the employer had in fact received the notice in a timely manner but failed to open its mail or post the notices promptly.

The Board held that the employer could not rely on its own failure to post notices or file a timely reply to support its request for reconsideration, nor could it invoke the rights of employees who had not themselves complained of insufficient notice.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The respondent requested reconsideration of an October 9, 1990 decision certifying the applicant union, arguing it did not receive timely notice of the application and was therefore unable to file a timely reply or post notices for employees.

The Board noted conflicting evidence regarding when the respondent received the documentation and when the notices were posted.

Given the factual dispute, the Board directed that the matter be listed for a hearing to hear evidence and representations on the issues raised in the reconsideration request.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

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

The Board found that the objecting employees, who were unrepresented, failed to adduce first-hand evidence regarding the origination and circulation of the petition, and failed to account for its custody.

Consequently, the Board gave no weight to the petition.

As the union demonstrated membership support of more than 55 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application and issued the certificates.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of business and that the two corporate respondents were related employers.

The respondents conceded they carried on related activities under common control but argued the application should be dismissed due to the union's delay.

The Board found that the union had actual knowledge of the non-union company's operations and its employment of non-union plumbers for several years but failed to act promptly or put the employer on notice.

Due to this delay and the potential prejudice to unrepresented employees, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to make a single employer declaration and dismissed both applications.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 filed cross-complaints alleging violations of sections 67 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The complaints arose from a dispute over the inclusion of certain equipment operator classifications in the respective unions' wage schedules during the negotiation of a landscaping collective agreement.

Both unions brought preliminary motions to dismiss the other's complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed both complaints, finding that neither union had established a violation of section 70, and that the allegations under section 67 were essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignments disguised as an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board held that such disputes should be resolved through the jurisdictional dispute procedures under the Act.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a Board decision, alleging the Vice-Chair acted as counsel for the unrepresented complainant.

The Board dismissed the request, noting it is standard practice to explain procedures to unrepresented parties and the respondent raised no new evidence.

The complainant notified the Board of the respondent's failure to pay the $4,500 ordered in the original decision.

The Board treated this as notification of non-compliance and directed that the determination be filed with the Supreme Court for enforcement.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was laid off in violation of the collective agreement.

The respondent employer argued that the collective agreement did not apply because the grievor was working in a pallet yard as part of a rehabilitation program for injured workers, which it claimed was not construction industry work.

The Board found that the collective agreement contained a latent ambiguity regarding its application to the pallet yard work.

Relying on extrinsic evidence, including the deduction of union dues and the application of trade jurisdictions in the pallet yard, the Board concluded that the parties intended the collective agreement to apply.

The grievance was allowed.

The parties requested the Ontario Labour Relations Board to arbitrate the settlement of their first collective agreement under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

As a preliminary matter, the Board ruled that the parties' conduct during negotiations is irrelevant to determining the contents of the arbitrated agreement.

On the merits, the Board determined the appropriate terms for hours of work, pension contributions, and wage rates by comparing other collective agreements in the industry and geographic area, while accounting for the employer's specific operational context and the pre-existing collective agreement with a displaced union.

The Board ordered the inclusion of the arbitrated terms and made the wage increases retroactive.

The complainant alleged he was discharged contrary to section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after raising safety concerns and speaking with a Ministry of Labour inspector.

The respondent claimed the discharge was solely due to the complainant's poor timekeeping.

The Board denied the respondent's request for an adjournment.

On the merits, the Board found the respondent failed to prove the discharge was untainted by anti-safety animus, noting the timing of the termination immediately following the inspector's visit and the lack of prior discipline for tardiness.

The Board awarded the complainant $4,500 in damages.

The parties requested a consent adjournment of a scheduled hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the adjournment but issued a decision expressing concern over the parties' repeated practice of requesting adjournments with minimal notice.

The Board emphasized that late adjournment requests squander limited institutional resources and warned that future requests lacking substantive reasons might be denied, even if on consent.

The matter was adjourned sine die.

The applicant union grieved that the respondent drywall contractor violated the subcontracting provisions of the ICI agreement by allowing a non-union supplier's employees to off-load and stockpile drywall on a construction project.

The Board first determined that the construction of the Home for the Aged fell within the ICI sector rather than the residential sector.

On the merits, the Board found that the delivery and unloading of drywall by the supplier's employees was not construction work covered by the ICI agreement, noting that the union had a separate collective agreement with unionized suppliers covering this exact work.

The grievance was dismissed.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees at Continuous Mining Systems Limited.

A group of objecting employees argued the application should be dismissed under section 13 of the Labour Relations Act because the employer provided the union with an employee list.

The Board found this did not constitute prohibited employer support.

The Board also determined that a lead hand did not exercise managerial functions.

The union's unfair labour practice complaints regarding employer statements were dismissed.

However, the Board found that an employee petition opposing the union was not a voluntary expression of true wishes, given the involvement of lead hands and other circumstances.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's application for certification and impose a bar on future applications, arguing that the union had filed six applications for substantially the same group of employees in two months.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to dismiss the application and impose a bar.

The Board found that while the union's slipshod manner of filing and withdrawing applications was not condoned, the mere frequency of the applications in these circumstances did not constitute an abuse of process or warrant depriving employees of their right to trade union representation.

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

The respondent requested a hearing, arguing it was not actively engaged in the construction industry and that the project was of short duration.

The Board disposed of the application without a hearing, finding that the respondent's admissions in its reply established it was engaged in construction activities.

The Board amended the geographic description of the bargaining unit to reflect the actual location of the project in a 'white area' and issued certificates to the applicant.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking a determination on whether they could deduct amounts required under the new Employer Health Tax Act from their remittances to the union's Health and Welfare Fund.

The respondent union raised preliminary objections regarding the Board's jurisdiction and the arbitrability of the grievance.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding it premature as no concrete incident or default had yet occurred.

The Board held that the applicants were essentially seeking an advisory opinion on a hypothetical situation, which is not the intended purpose of the statutory arbitration mechanism.

The complainant Ironworkers filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work involving the unloading, handling, and installation of tool rail (Hollywood Rail and Louden Rail) and support steel at a General Motors plant.

The employer had assigned the Hollywood Rail to the United Association (UA) and the support steel to a composite crew of UA and Ironworkers.

The Board considered criteria including collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, economy and efficiency, employer practice, and area practice.

The Board found that the area or industry practice favoured assigning the work to a composite crew of Ironworkers and Millwrights, rejecting the UA's argument that new technology (the A.G.V. system) or the 'end use' of the rail justified the assignment.

The Board directed the employer to assign the work to a composite crew of Ironworkers and Millwrights.