Louisa M. Davie

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers.

The intervener trade union, which already represented bricklayers' assistants employed by one of the related respondent employers, challenged the applicant's proposed bargaining unit description, arguing it improperly carved out a portion of the applicant's designated trade contrary to the province-wide bargaining scheme.

The Board held that the intervener had status to intervene.

The Board further held that it had jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act to describe a bargaining unit that excludes a portion of a designated trade where those employees are already represented by another trade union, and that it was appropriate to do so in this case to preserve existing bargaining rights and avoid disenfranchising unrepresented employees.

The complainant alleged he was discharged contrary to section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act for raising safety concerns and participating in a health and safety committee.

The employer maintained the discharge was solely because the complainant deliberately or recklessly struck a fellow employee's hand with a hammer, causing serious injury.

The Board found the employer's decision was not tainted by anti-safety animus and was based entirely on the complainant's violent conduct and prior disciplinary record.

The Board declined to substitute a lesser penalty and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of electricians.

The respondent employer objected, arguing that the union's provincial collective agreement discriminated on the basis of age by providing preferential treatment to older workers, contrary to the Human Rights Code and section 13 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board denied the Ontario Human Rights Commission intervener status.

The Board found that the impugned provisions, which provided job security and preferred access to less physically demanding jobs for older members, did not constitute prohibited discrimination but were reasonable accommodations.

The Board also resolved a dispute over an employee's inclusion in the bargaining unit and ultimately granted the certification.

The applicants sought a declaration under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent was a successor employer to a sole proprietorship following a sale of business in 1957.

The respondents argued that the statutory provisions, which were enacted in 1963 and 1971 respectively, could not be applied retrospectively.

The Board held that the presumption against retrospectivity applied because the provisions attached new consequences to a past event and did not merely declare a current status.

The Board further found that the provisions were not purely protective of the public in a manner that would rebut the presumption.

The applications were dismissed.

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.

The applicant union sought certification.

The respondent employer and objecting employees alleged that the membership evidence was tainted by the improper conduct of a rank and file employee who acted as a collector.

They alleged he threatened job security and misrepresented the union's two-tier initiation fee structure.

The Board found that the collector was not a union official and his statements, while improper in some respects, would not have deterred or unduly influenced a reasonable employee.

The Board concluded the membership evidence was voluntary and certified the union.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the City of Etobicoke and the Etobicoke Public Library Board were related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively that a sale of a business had occurred under section 63.

The union abandoned the section 63 claim.

The application arose after the Library Board contracted for the construction of a new library using non-union labour, while the City was bound by a collective agreement with the union.

The Board assumed without finding that the preconditions for a section 1(4) declaration were met, but declined to exercise its discretion to make the declaration.

The Board found that the City's involvement in the library construction was limited to its statutory financial obligations and did not constitute an attempt to avoid bargaining rights or interfere with the Library Board's labour relations.

The application was dismissed.

The Labourers, Local 506 and the Bricklayers, Local 1 both brought applications under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act seeking declarations that several corporate entities constituted a common employer.

The Board found that the preconditions for a section 1(4) declaration were met for seven of the respondents.

However, the Board dismissed the Bricklayers' application due to unreasonable delay, as the union knew or ought to have known of the related employers for four years without asserting its bargaining rights.

The Board granted the Labourers' application, declaring the seven entities a common employer with respect to the Labourers, to prevent undue fragmentation and create a viable bargaining unit.

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

The respondent argued that its primary business of repairing concrete cracks in underground parking garages was maintenance, not construction, and therefore the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act did not apply.

The Board applied the test from Master Insulators' and determined that the work involved restoring the waterproofing capacity of structures that had ceased to function properly, which constitutes repair rather than maintenance.

Consequently, the work fell within the construction industry, and the Board issued certificates to the applicant.

The respondent Labourers Union requested reconsideration of a preliminary evidentiary ruling made by the Board in a jurisdictional dispute.

The ruling limited the scope of evidence regarding area and employer practice to specific types of boiler demolition.

The Labourers argued the ruling was made by a pre-hearing panel without jurisdiction and violated natural justice by pre-determining relevance.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the panel was properly constituted to hear the preliminary issue, sufficient notice was given, and the request merely sought to reargue matters already considered without introducing new evidence.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by employing non-union members and failing to remit union dues for a construction project.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The union relied on the testimony of a field representative who visited the site once and spoke to workers who claimed to work for the respondent but were not union members.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the union failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the work was performed by the respondent or that the workers were employed in violation of the collective agreement, as the union's evidence amounted to conjecture rather than sufficient proof.

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 union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Widcor Limited and Green-King Ltd. constitute a single employer.

Widcor, a developer bound by the union's provincial ICI collective agreement, wound down its construction operations and engaged Green-King, a company reactivated by Widcor's former construction manager, to build a car dealership.

The Board found that the two entities carried on related activities and were under common direction or control due to the former manager's continued use of Widcor's organizational structure and Widcor's intimate involvement in the project.

The Board exercised its discretion to issue a common employer declaration, but limited its application to instances where the two companies together engage in the construction industry.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC) applied for certification to displace the Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 562, as the bargaining agent for sheet metal workers employed by Reitzel Heating & Sheet Metal Ltd. The central issue was the appropriate bargaining unit description in a displacement application where the incumbent held province-wide ICI bargaining rights but the applicant was not an affiliated bargaining agent.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that CLAC could not acquire province-wide bargaining rights, nor was it required to take an 'all trades' unit.

The Board held that the appropriate bargaining unit was limited to sheet metal workers and apprentices in the ICI sector in Board Area 6, balancing the statutory scheme of province-wide bargaining with the employees' right to choose their bargaining agent.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed statements of desire (a petition) opposing the union.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found inconsistencies in the evidence of the employee who circulated the petition, including his failure to disclose leaving work early on the days he mailed the petition and related letters.

The Board concluded the objectors failed to discharge the onus of proving the petition was a voluntary expression of the employees' true wishes.

As the union had the requisite membership support, the Board certified the union, pending final resolution of the bargaining unit description regarding certain disputed positions.

The complainant union filed multiple unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze and discriminated against employees for their union support during a displacement organizing drive.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Board should defer the complaints to the grievance and arbitration process under the existing collective agreement with the incumbent union.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, declining to defer to arbitration because the complaints involved significant statutory rights, the complainant was not a party to the collective agreement, and the remedies available at arbitration might be inadequate.

The union alleged that the respondents were successor employers to Royal Dressed Meats Inc. after purchasing its plant and equipment from a trustee in bankruptcy.

The union also alleged unfair labour practices for failing to recognize the union and apply the collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while there was a sale of assets, there was no sale of a 'business' or 'part of a business' within the meaning of section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents had merely acquired assets to expand an already established, parallel business, and there was no transfer of goodwill, customer lists, or the predecessor's economic organization.

Both the successorship application and the unfair labour practice complaint were dismissed.

The applicant unions applied under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act for a direction allowing their representatives access to the employer's property, specifically the mining camp where employees reside, for the purpose of union organizing.

The employer objected to the scope and duration of the access, particularly regarding the bunkhouse areas located within the secured mine site.

The Board granted the application, finding no compelling reason to restrict access to areas where employees normally reside, and directed access subject to specific conditions and time limits.