M. Eayrs

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.

An employee requested the Ontario Labour Relations Board to reconsider its decision certifying the applicant union, alleging that the employer and union breached section 58 of the Labour Relations Act and that the employer provided support to the union in violation of section 13.

The union argued the request should be denied due to delay and because the evidence was known at the time of certification.

The Board held that the strict prohibition against employer support in section 13 warranted exercising its discretion to reconsider the certification decision.

The Board directed that a hearing proceed to determine whether the certification should be varied or revoked.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervener union claimed a pre-existing collective agreement with the respondent employer barred the application.

The applicant challenged the validity of the agreement under sections 48 and 60 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following written submissions where the respondent and objectors also disputed the agreement's validity, the intervener withdrew its intervention and its claim to the collective agreement bar.

The Board found no bar to the certification application, noting that by withdrawing in the face of a challenge, the intervener abandoned any bargaining rights it might have held for the affected employees.

The applicant union alleged a sale of business and sought a related employer declaration concerning ISCL and 671860.

ISCL, a construction company, became insolvent and wound up in 1982.

Five and a half years later, the principal's wife incorporated 671860, which the principal managed, to perform construction work.

The Board dismissed the sale of business application as no assets or business were transferred.

However, the Board granted the related employer declaration, finding that despite the 5.5-year gap, the two companies carried on associated or related activities under common control and direction, and it was appropriate to pierce the corporate veil to preserve bargaining rights.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint.

The intervener union claimed an existing collective agreement barred the application.

At the hearing, the Board received evidence on this threshold issue but ran out of time for oral submissions.

The Board directed the parties to file written submissions on the collective agreement bar issue to expedite the proceedings, balancing the right to make submissions with the need for expedition in labour relations matters.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether to issue new designation orders or amend existing ones under the provincial bargaining sections of the Labour Relations Act.

The referral arose after a previous Board decision found that Local 2693 was an affiliated bargaining agent and thus prohibited from entering into non-provincial agreements for construction labourers in the ICI sector.

The Board reviewed the history of Local 2693, the statutory framework for provincial bargaining, and several options available to the Minister.

A majority of the panel recommended that the Minister not alter the existing status quo to promote stability in provincial bargaining, while the Vice-Chair dissented, favouring the preservation of Local 2693's historical bargaining rights.

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

The sole issue was whether any employees were performing bargaining unit work on the application date.

Applying the criteria from Seegmiller and Gilvesey, the Board rejected the use of a 'representative period' and focused on the work performed on the application date.

The Board found that two employees who operated worker and material hoists spent a majority of their time performing bargaining unit work on that date, even when participating in loading and unloading.

The Board directed the issuance of certificates for the ICI sector and the relevant geographic area.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held but no ballots were cast because the employees were not on the job site.

The applicant union failed to object or request a new vote until almost three months later, well past the deadline.

The Board held that the test for timeliness of objections is whether, with reasonable diligence, the factual basis would not have come to the objector's attention before the deadline.

Finding that the applicant failed to exercise reasonable diligence, the Board denied the request for a new vote and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought reconsideration and a stay of a previous Board decision that found it was an affiliated bargaining agent not entitled to represent construction labourers in the ICI sector.

The applicant argued the decision disrupted historic bargaining patterns and requested a stay pending a potential ministerial amendment to the designation orders.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify a stay and noting that the power of reconsideration does not require the original panel, but the applicant failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the original decision was wrong.

The union applied for the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing, instead sending a telegram arguing the Board had lost jurisdiction because the hearing did not commence within the 21-day statutory time limit, and requesting reconsideration of the original direction to arbitrate.

The Board held that the time limit was directory, not mandatory, and declined to reconsider the original panel's decision.

Proceeding on the merits in the employer's absence, the Board settled the first collective agreement based on a model agreement from a related company, imposing the statutory two-year term.

The applicant union referred three grievances to arbitration, alleging the respondent Board of Education violated the subcontracting clause of the provincial collective agreement by contracting masonry work to non-union employers.

The respondent argued it was merely a purchaser of construction, not an employer operating a business in the construction industry.

The Board found that the respondent exercised sufficient control over the job site and the selection of contractors to be considered engaged in a business in the construction industry.

The grievances were allowed and the applicant was entitled to compensation.

The applicant employee association applied for certification.

The Board found that the applicant was not a properly formed trade union within the meaning of section 1(1)(p) of the Labour Relations Act because its constitution was not adopted or ratified by its members, and its officers were not elected by members.

Furthermore, the constitution improperly excluded casual, temporary, and probationary employees from membership.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employers and the union agreed to a related employer declaration.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire after the terminal date, requesting an extension because the employer's bookkeeper had mistakenly altered the terminal date on the posted Board notice.

The Board refused to extend the terminal date, finding that the employees had adequate notice of the original date before the unauthorized alteration was made.

As the union had membership support from more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit on the terminal date, the Board granted certification.

The complainant, a unionized security officer, alleged that the employer violated section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act by denying him access to an involuntary severance plan that was available to non-unionized employees.

The complainant sought to take early retirement and receive severance payments in addition to his pension.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had negotiated different benefits for its members, such as job security and recall rights, and had never sought to bargain for the severance plan.

The Board concluded that the employer's provision of different benefits to unrepresented employees did not constitute improper discrimination under the Act.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of truck drivers employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The parties disputed the inclusion of two employees who performed both truck driving and labouring work.

The Board found that both employees were paid exclusively at the labourer's rate and were treated by the respondent as falling within a separate labourers' bargaining unit.

Consequently, the Board excluded them from the truck drivers' unit.

Having determined the final list of employees, the Board found that more than 55% of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant and ordered that a certificate issue.

The respondent union, Local 786, requested that the Board reconsider its previous decision finding the union liable for an unlawful strike and assessing damages of $18,795.00.

The union argued that the Board departed from established legal principles regarding union liability and agency, and failed to properly consider evidence relating to damages.

The Board reviewed the arbitral jurisprudence on union liability for unlawful strikes, reaffirming that union officials have a positive duty to avert and end unlawful strikes.

The Board found that the union's business agent failed to take adequate steps to prevent the strike despite clear warning signs.

The Board also upheld its assessment of damages, finding that the employer's calculation of overtime costs incurred to make up for the strike delay was reasonable.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent stage employees of the respondent.

The respondent challenged the applicant's trade union status and the validity of its membership evidence, arguing that the applicant failed to follow its own constitution regarding competency examinations, initiation fees, and residency requirements.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also upheld the validity of the membership evidence, noting that the statutory definition of a member supersedes union constitutional requirements for the purposes of certification, and that the residency requirement did not violate the Act.

The matter was referred to a labour relations officer to inquire into the bargaining unit description and employee lists.

The union brought an application under section 63 and a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act against two banks and their privately appointed receivers following the insolvency of Windsor Packing Company Limited.

The union argued that the receivers were successor employers and were liable for unpaid union dues and other collective agreement obligations.

The Board held that the private appointment of a receiver-manager does not constitute a sale or transfer of a business under section 63.

However, the Board found that the receiver, acting as an agent of the insolvent company, violated section 64 by failing to deduct and remit union dues and ignoring the collective agreement while employing bargaining unit members to wind down operations.

The receiver was ordered to pay the union dues for the period it acted as the employer.

The complainants alleged they were indefinitely laid off because of their support for a union during an organizing campaign, contrary to sections 66 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued the layoffs were strictly due to the loss of a major assembly contract with General Motors.

The Board found no evidence of an organized plan to protect anti-union employees or any anti-union animus connected to the layoffs.

The employer successfully demonstrated that the layoffs were motivated by legitimate business reasons.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith under the Labour Relations Act by unlawfully withdrawing an offer to continue COLA payments in order to avoid reaching a collective agreement.

The employer argued that its inexperienced negotiator made a mistake in conveying the company's position during conciliation, and that it promptly corrected the error once discovered.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had made a genuine mistake and did not intend to continue the COLA payments, and that correcting the unaccepted offer did not constitute bad faith bargaining.