N. A. Wilson

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer argued the application was barred by a prior voluntary recognition agreement entered into by the parties.

The Board held that while section 5(3) of the Labour Relations Act precludes another trade union from applying for certification within one year of a recognition agreement, it does not prevent the voluntarily recognized union itself from applying for certification.

The Board noted that voluntary recognition does not confer the same statutory rights as certification, such as the right to compel bargaining or access conciliation.

Therefore, the application was not barred.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

Following the vote, the applicant sought to enlarge the bargaining unit description to include the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, a claim it had previously withdrawn.

The respondent employer and intervener union objected to this expansion.

The Board held that while the expanded unit would normally be appropriate in a displacement application, the applicant could not change its position and enlarge the unit after the parties had met to review the employee list and the vote had been taken based on the narrower unit.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit to be the narrower unit originally sought and directed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the list of eligible voters.

The union applied for certification in the construction industry and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer laid off three employees due to union activity.

The Board found that petitions filed by employees opposing certification were not voluntary, as they followed a meeting where the employer implied future employment might be jeopardized by unionization.

The Board granted the certification and issued certificates.

However, the Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, accepting the employer's evidence that the three laid-off employees were not offered further work because they had previously indicated they did not want to continue working for the employer.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Boilermakers and the Labourers regarding demolition work, the Labourers sought to adduce viva voce evidence on a preliminary basis to challenge the Board's earlier ruling on the parameters of admissible past practice evidence.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that it has inherent jurisdiction to determine the relevance of evidence without first hearing it, and that evidence regarding the demolition of structures other than field-erected, steam-generating boilers in an operating environment is irrelevant to the specific work in dispute.

The employer filed two grievances under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act against individual employees and their respective unions, alleging the employees breached the collective agreement by failing to return tools and improperly receiving subsistence allowances.

The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding arbitrability, proper delivery of the grievances, and delay.

The Board reserved its decision on whether an employer can grieve against individual employees until the merits are heard.

The Board held that delivery of the grievance to the local union satisfied the statutory requirement, and delivery to the individual employees was not required.

However, the Board dismissed the grievance concerning the subsistence allowance due to the employer's unexplained 14-month delay in pursuing the matter.

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 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 trade union, Local 183, applied for certification for a unit of construction labourers.

The Board considered whether to continue its historical policy of distinguishing between the bargaining units granted to Local 183 and Local 506 in the Toronto area, given the new section 131a of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that section 131a contains mandatory directives regarding the appropriate bargaining unit, which precludes the Board from continuing the previous distinction or making sectoral determinations as a condition precedent to certification.

The Board found that both locals are entitled to apply under either subsection 1 or 3 of section 131a, and issued certificates to the applicant for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector province-wide, and for all other sectors in the local geographic area.