M. Ross

The applicant union council sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against M. J. Guthrie Construction Limited and Rosedale Construction, and referred a grievance under section 124.

The Board found that the two companies were under common control and direction.

Although they had operated side-by-side for over twenty years, the recent phasing out of the unionized company and the performance of its work by the non-unionized company threatened to erode existing bargaining rights.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration to protect these rights.

However, the Board dismissed the section 124 grievance, finding that the historical working agreement relied upon was null and void in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector due to the provincial bargaining requirements of section 146 of the Act.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that Inducon Construction of Canada Limited and related companies violated the Carpenters' provincial collective agreement.

The respondents argued that any bargaining rights previously held had been abandoned and that the companies were not related employers.

The Board found that the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights, as the employer had not operated in the geographic area for several years.

Applying section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board declared that Inducon Development Corporation, Inducon Design/Build Associates, and Inducon Construction (Northern) Inc. carried on associated or related activities under common control and direction, and treated them as one employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The Board declined to include Desbil Management Inc. and Inducon Consultants of Canada Limited in the declaration, finding no labour relations purpose to do so.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters employed by the respondent in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector province-wide, and in all other sectors in Grey County.

On the application date, the respondent had no employees working in the ICI sector, but had carpenters working in residential construction in Grey County.

The Board held that under section 131a(1) of the Labour Relations Act, an application can relate to the ICI sector even if no employees are working in that sector on the application date, provided the proposed bargaining unit encompasses it.

Finding that the union had the requisite membership support among the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board issued two certificates: one for the ICI sector province-wide, and one for all other sectors in Grey County.

A dissenting board member argued that the desires of carpenters working outside Grey County should have been considered before issuing a province-wide ICI certificate.