Michael Bendel

The grievor requested the Board to reconvene to determine the amount of compensation due following a successful grievance for discharge without just cause.

The union, as the applicant, objected to bringing the matter back before the Board.

The employer also objected, arguing that only the union and the employer are parties to the grievance.

The Board dismissed the grievor's request, holding that only the union and the employer have standing on a section 124 application, and the grievor could not independently seek a ruling on compensation.

The complainant union filed a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act alleging the respondent employer violated section 43 by failing to remit deducted union dues.

The parties had previously settled a grievance on the issue by agreeing to submit the dispute to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

At the hearing, the Board raised the issue of its jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that section 43 only requires the inclusion of a dues deduction provision in a collective agreement, while enforcement of such provisions falls under section 50 and must be resolved through grievance arbitration under section 44.

The Board noted that its statutory jurisdiction cannot be expanded by the agreement of the parties.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the respondent union under the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

The respondent and the intervener employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the employer's interprovincial and international trucking business falls under federal jurisdiction.

The Board agreed, finding that the business is subject to the Canada Labour Code, and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant union brought an application alleging a sale of business from Ameri-Cana Motel Limited to a numbered company, seeking to bind the numbered company to the provincial collective agreement.

The respondents argued the union had abandoned its bargaining rights, which were originally obtained by certification in 1972.

The Board found that the union failed to take reasonable steps to monitor the employer's construction activities between 1973 and 1977, despite the employer operating from a fixed location where ongoing construction was visible.

Consequently, the Board concluded the union had abandoned its bargaining rights prior to the advent of province-wide bargaining in 1978, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, an employee, brought three applications under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent unions for three bargaining units at the intervener's store.

The unions challenged the voluntariness of the petitions, arguing that the labour relations environment was turbulent, the evidence of circulation was deficient, and a key supporter of the petitions was perceived as acting on behalf of management.

The Board found that the labour relations background did not thwart free expression and that the petitions were circulated voluntarily.

The Board also concluded that the key supporter, a head cashier, did not exercise managerial functions and would not have been perceived by employees as acting for management.

Furthermore, the Board held that the applicant was competent to bring the applications for all three units.

The Board directed that representation votes be taken.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the applications, finding that the key supporter was perceived as an arm of management.

The applicant sought an exemption from paying union dues on religious grounds, arguing that her anti-abortion beliefs conflicted with the union's pro-choice policy.

The trade union opposed the application as untimely under section 47(2) of the Labour Relations Act, since the applicant was not employed when the first collective agreement requiring dues deduction was entered into.

The applicant argued the Human Rights Code should override the Act to prevent constructive discrimination.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it untimely and affirming that the Human Rights Code does not have primacy over the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant, Local 594, sought a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent, Local 586, had not acquired its bargaining rights following a merger ordered by the International President of the IBEW.

Local 594 argued that a merger could not be effected without a vote of its members.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that the merger was carried out in accordance with the union's constitution and that the Board's role under section 62 is to ensure constitutional provisions were followed, not to require a membership vote.

A dissenting member would have required a representation vote for non-ICI sector bargaining rights.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights ten weeks after the union was certified.

The union raised preliminary objections, arguing the application was untimely under section 123(1) of the Labour Relations Act and requesting the Board exercise its discretion under section 103(2)(i) to bar the application.

The Board held that the application was timely under section 57(2)(a) because the union had become bound by a provincial agreement upon certification, and the application was filed during the last two months of that agreement's operation.

The Board also found it had no discretion under section 103(2)(i) to bar the application based on unsuccessful employee petitions filed during the certification process.

The preliminary objections were dismissed.

The applicant union local sought a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent union local was not its successor following a merger ordered by the international union president.

The Board found that the employer intervener had status to participate but could not lead evidence on the business consequences of the merger.

The Board determined that the merger was conducted in accordance with the union's constitution, which did not require a membership vote.

However, the Board raised concerns about the effect of section 137(2) of the Act and the provincial agreement on the application, and referred the matter for a further hearing on that issue.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union violated its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act regarding his discharge grievance arbitration.

The complainant, who was discharged for theft, argued that the union representative did not properly represent him and that he should have been provided with legal counsel.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union representative was experienced, had prepared a strategy focusing on rehabilitation, and that the union was under no obligation to retain a lawyer for the arbitration.