R. 0. MacDowell

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent employer improperly assigned the assembly of a metal meter shed to a mixed crew of carpenters and labourers instead of sheet metal workers.

The intervener union argued that the work was properly assigned based on established practice.

The Board determined that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute that should be dealt with under section 91 of the Act to allow all interested parties, including the unrepresented labourers' union, to participate.

The Board adjourned the section 124 application for 30 days to permit the filing of a jurisdictional dispute.

The respondent union and employees sought reconsideration of an OLRB decision declaring an unlawful sympathy strike and issuing remedial directions.

The union argued the directions were unwarranted or beyond the Board's jurisdiction, specifically challenging requirements to notify members of their rights and post the Board's decision.

The union also contested the finding that it authorized the strike and that it could violate section 76(1) as a 'person'.

The Board upheld most of its original directions, finding them necessary given the pattern of unlawful activity and the union's failure to repudiate the strike.

However, the Board agreed that a trade union is not a 'person' under section 76(1) and varied one declaration to exclude the union itself from that specific breach.

The complainant alleged that the union breached sections 52, 53, and 85 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating and ratifying a new collective agreement before the expiry of the existing one.

The union agreed to provide the requested financial statement once approved.

The Board found that section 53 allows parties to give notice to bargain 90 days before expiry but does not prohibit earlier bargaining.

Section 52 prevents early termination of an agreement without Board consent but allows parties to revise terms by mutual consent.

Since the existing agreement would still expire on its original date, the Board found no violation of the Act and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant employer sought a declaration and directions under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that its employees engaged in an unlawful strike by refusing to cross a picket line established by fellow union members from another company.

The respondent union and employees argued the refusal was based on individual safety concerns and a collective agreement provision.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the refusal to cross the picket line was motivated by union solidarity, not safety, and constituted an unlawful strike.

The Board also found that the union and its officials authorized and encouraged the strike.

The Board issued declarations of unlawful strike and cease-and-desist directions against the employees, the union, and its officials.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents, Agincourt and KNK, constituted one employer.

The principal of Agincourt, a unionized electrical contractor, ceased operations and shortly thereafter incorporated KNK, a non-union firm carrying on the same business.

The respondents conceded the legal requirements for a related employer declaration were met but argued the union's delay in bringing the application should bar relief.

The Board held that delay alone does not bar a section 1(4) declaration, as the provision is designed to prevent the erosion of bargaining rights through corporate restructuring.

However, given the union's delay, the Board granted the declaration but limited its retrospective effect to commercial activities entered into after the union filed the application.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to allow a specific union representative on company premises for meetings.

The employer's refusal stemmed from a past incident where the representative exhibited aggressive behaviour.

The Board found that the employer's conduct was motivated by a personal conflict rather than anti-union animus.

The Board declined to intervene, concluding the matter was best resolved through collective bargaining rather than statutory remedies, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

A dispute arose over the number of employees in the bargaining unit, specifically whether temporary agency workers should be included.

The Board found that despite the 'all employee' description in the collective agreement, neither the union nor the employer ever intended for agency workers to be part of the bargaining unit.

The Board concluded that agency workers are not employees in the bargaining unit for the purposes of section 57 of the Labour Relations Act, and directed the matter to be relisted to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

The applicant employer sought a cease and desist direction against the respondent union and its officials for an alleged unlawful strike.

The employees had refused to work on a 'Sears job', claiming it was 'struck work' from a sister local's dispute, relying on a provision in their collective agreement that permitted such refusals.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the concerted refusal to work constituted an unlawful sympathetic strike under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ruled that parties cannot contract out of the statutory prohibition against mid-contract strikes, rendering the collective agreement's 'struck work' clause void as a defence to the unlawful strike application.

The Board issued declarations and directions to cease the unlawful activity.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a timely petition opposing the certification, which included signatures of some employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the petition represented a voluntary change of heart.

The Board found that while some signatures were voluntary, others were obtained after the employer made statements implying that unionization would lead to job losses.

Consequently, the Board discounted the involuntary signatures.

Even accepting the voluntary signatures, the union retained the support of more than 55% of the bargaining unit.

The Board therefore granted certification without a representation vote.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union at a specific branch.

The Board first amended the original certificate to reflect the branch's relocation to a new address, as requested by the union and employer without objection.

The Board then found that over 45% of employees in the full-time bargaining unit had voluntarily signified they no longer wished to be represented by the union, and directed a representation vote.

However, the application was dismissed with respect to the part-time bargaining unit, as less than 45% of those employees had signified such a desire.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit.

The employer argued that one of the two individuals in the proposed unit was not an employee, but rather a volunteer or independent contractor who occasionally helped out and received small sums of money or meals.

The Board found that the individual was a casual employee because he provided services in exchange for compensation.

The Board also declined to segregate the full-time and casual employees into separate bargaining units, as doing so would prevent collective bargaining altogether.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer failed to apply the provincial ICI agreement to construction projects in Cambridge.

The employer argued it was only bound by a local multi-sector formwork agreement in the London area.

The Board found that the local formwork agreement, insofar as it purported to apply to the ICI sector, was null and void under section 146(2) of the Act.

Consequently, the local agreement did not create provincial ICI bargaining rights that the applicant could rely upon.

The grievances were dismissed.

The complainant union sought an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act to redistribute work in its favour, citing an imminent strike by its own members.

The Board initially refused the interim order without a hearing, reasoning that a party cannot rely on its own illegal strike threat to obtain relief.

The complainant sought reconsideration, arguing the refusal without a hearing or consultation was a denial of fundamental justice.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, affirming that it has discretion under section 91(8) and is not required to hold a hearing when the pleadings do not disclose a valid basis for an interim order.

The applicant employer association referred a grievance to arbitration, alleging that the respondent union violated the collective agreement by allowing the Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee (JATC) to limit the number of apprentices and select them based on merit rather than minimum qualifications.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement did not govern the internal workings of the JATC and that the JATC's policy of admitting only the most qualified candidates was not inconsistent with its mandate to assure an adequate supply of properly trained mechanics.

In a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act, the parties failed to file the required pre-hearing briefs and documentation as mandated by the Board's Rules of Procedure and Practice Note 15.

The Board expressed its dissatisfaction with the parties' disregard for the procedural rules, noting that such non-compliance wastes the Board's time and resources.

The Board emphasized that moving forward, strict adherence to the rules and practice notes will be expected to ensure the orderly and expeditious resolution of jurisdictional disputes.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine the employee status of a yard foreman.

The respondent employer argued the individual exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board reviewed the individual's duties, noting he had no subordinates during the winter and only seasonal workers during the summer, with limited independent decision-making authority.

The Board concluded the individual did not exercise managerial functions and was an employee within the meaning of the Act.

In an application for certification, both the applicant union and the intervener union requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board had previously deemed the intervener's application to have been made on the same date as the original application.

The intervener argued that its membership support should be assessed as of its actual intervention date, as it gathered significant support after the original application date.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the deemed application date applies for assessing membership support under section 9(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the intervener lacked the requisite 35% support and its application was dismissed.

A two-way vote between the applicant and a 'no union' option was ordered.

The applicant union applied under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The union argued that collective bargaining was unsuccessful due to the employer's uncompromising stance, which was dictated by funding constraints imposed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer had made reasonable efforts to conclude an agreement and had not engaged in bad faith bargaining.

The Board concluded that the parties were not yet at an impasse and could benefit from further negotiations.

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

Following the vote, a group of objecting employees sought to have the vote set aside, alleging that a pervasive atmosphere of intimidation, including sporadic acts of property damage to vehicles, prevented the free expression of employee wishes.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board assumed the truth of the objectors' allegations but concluded they were insufficient to warrant setting aside the secret ballot vote.

The Board noted that the complaints were largely untimely, not directly linked to the union, and did not demonstrate that the voting process itself was compromised.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer discharged two employees, Connie Campbell and Steven Cliche, due to their union activities.

The Board found that Campbell, a key union supporter, was discharged because of her trade union activity and her insistence on her statutory rights, in violation of the Labour Relations Act and a prior settlement agreement.

The Board ordered her reinstatement with full compensation and directed the employer to post a notice of employees' rights.

The complaint regarding Cliche was dismissed, as the Board found his discharge was not motivated by anti-union animus.