P.J. O'Keeffe

The complainant building trade unions alleged a violation of a consent access order by the respondents.

The respondents argued the order was spent.

The Board found a bona fide justification for the unions' continued need for access to the property to persuade employees to join, particularly given a competing certification application by the Steelworkers.

The Board declined to read a temporal limitation into the access order and declared it continued in effect until a vote is held or the certification applications are determined.

The applicant union, Carpenters Local 1030, applied for certification to represent a unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent outside the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The intervener union, Labourers Local 527, argued that the applicant was prohibited from bringing such an application under section 144(3) of the Labour Relations Act and from entering into a collective agreement under section 146(2).

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the Act does not restrict the applicant from bringing an application for non-ICI construction labourers.

Finding that both unions had filed sufficient membership evidence, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine which union would represent the employees.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a single arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer objected to the appointment, arguing that the grievance concerning a safety and attendance bonus arose after the expiry of both the collective agreement and the statutory freeze period.

The trade union contended that the right to the bonus accrued during the agreement and freeze period.

The Board advised the Minister that he has the authority to appoint an arbitrator, as the arbitrator has the jurisdiction to interpret the collective agreement and determine whether the grievance is arbitrable and valid.

The applicant trade union sought certification for the office and field staff of the respondent trade union.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the applicant was barred under section 13 of the Labour Relations Act because it is an 'employer' and that its constitution precluded the respondent's field staff from membership due to potential jurisdictional conflicts.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding that the potential for future jurisdictional conflict was too remote to trigger the section 13 bar and that the applicant's constitution did not explicitly prohibit membership.

The Board appointed an officer to inquire into the appropriate bargaining unit.

The complainants, employees of Manor Cleaners Ltd., filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation and violated the Labour Relations Act.

The union failed to meet with employees during the bargaining process and required employees to sign union cards and pay initiation fees to participate in a strike vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the union violated sections 68 and 72(5) of the Act.

The Board ordered the union to convene meetings with employees, provide copies of the collective agreement, and refrain from excluding non-members from future strike or ratification votes.

In a certification application involving multiple unions at a remote mining project, the Ontario Labour Relations Board extended the terminal date because the isolated location and employee work schedules prevented adequate notice.

The Board declined to impose new access rules for union organizers, maintaining the existing arrangements.

Additionally, the Board dismissed allegations that the employer violated section 13 of the Labour Relations Act by informing one union of a rival union's presence, finding such communication practical and not indicative of improper support.

The applicant union applied for certification and a pre-hearing representation vote was held, which the union won.

The respondent employer argued that the union's recent merger and name change created a new entity or caused confusion among employees regarding the membership evidence.

The Board found that despite the variations in nomenclature, there was no substantive change in the union's legal identity and no evidence of employee confusion.

The Board certified the union pending the final resolution of the bargaining unit composition.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent school board committed an unfair labour practice by distributing a circular to occasional teachers during an organizing campaign.

The circular stated that union solicitation should not take place on school premises during the school day and warned of discipline for such conduct.

A subsequent circular clarified that employees could discuss union membership on their own time.

The majority of the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's communications were a valid exercise of its right to maintain order and prevent disruption of the educational program, and did not violate the Labour Relations Act.

A dissenting member would have found an unfair labour practice and ordered a remedial posting.

The applicant, a teacher at a Jewish community school, applied for a religious exemption from paying union dues under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

She argued that her opposition to the union's collective bargaining activities, which had led to a work stoppage and community dissension, was based on her religious beliefs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that while her concerns were sincere, they were not traceable to religious convictions or beliefs, as Judaism does not prohibit trade union activity and she could not identify a religious underpinning for her position.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer failed to make required remittances for various funds.

The employer argued it was not bound by a collective agreement for sewer and watermain work.

The Board held that while a preliminary 'short agreement' was not a collective agreement, the parties' Concrete and Drain Agreement was binding.

Under article 10.04 of that agreement, the employer was required to apply the terms of the Sewer and Watermain Agreement to such work, even after the latter agreement had expired.

The Board directed the employer to make the required remittances.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith during negotiations for a first collective agreement.

The union argued the employer's wage offer and refusal to agree to a Rand formula check-off were designed to prevent ratification.

The Board found that while the employer took a firm position on union security, it was a legitimate response to the union's pressure tactics, which included suggesting a production slowdown and contacting customers.

The Board concluded the employer was engaging in hard bargaining rather than surface bargaining, and dismissed the complaint.