R. A. Furness

The applicant union sought relief under sections 1(4), 63, and 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

Local 800 sought status to intervene based on a maintenance agreement with the respondent employer.

The Board found that the maintenance agreement was signed when there were no employees at work and Local 800 did not subsequently supply members of its own union for all covered trades, constituting employer support under section 48(a) of the Act.

Consequently, the agreement was not a valid collective agreement, and Local 800 was denied status to intervene.

Local 800 and the respondents requested an adjournment to challenge the ruling in court.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding that the balance of convenience favoured continuing the proceedings to avoid prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant, an employers' organization, applied for accreditation as the bargaining agent for certain employers in the residential sector of the construction industry who have a bargaining relationship with the respondent union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that it had jurisdiction, that the applicant was a properly constituted employers' organization, and that it represented a majority of the employers who employed a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit.

The Board granted the application and issued a Certificate of Accreditation.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's plant.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire opposing the certification.

The union initially alleged employer interference but withdrew those allegations.

The Board inquired into the origination and circulation of the statement of desire.

The Board found that the employees who circulated the petition acted on their own views and that the employer maintained a hands-off policy, only intervening to stop discussions when production was affected.

The Board concluded the statement of desire represented the voluntary wishes of the employees and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding that management favoured the objectors.

During a grievance arbitration hearing, the applicant union requested a bench warrant for a witness who failed to attend after being served with a subpoena duces tecum.

The Board declined to issue the warrant, finding that serving the witness on the afternoon prior to the hearing did not constitute reasonable notice, and therefore the witness was not duly served.

The applicant trade unions referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer violated provincial collective agreements.

The employer argued it was not bound by any collective agreement, asserting that a 'working agreement' signed in 1960 with the Council was invalid because the Council was not a certified council of trade unions and the employer had no employees represented by the unions at the time of signing.

The Board held that the working agreement constituted a valid voluntary recognition agreement entered into by the Council as an agent for its affiliated trade unions.

Applying the Nicholls-Radtke principle, the Board found that signing the agreement on the understanding that the unions would supply competent workmen did not constitute unlawful employer support.

The Board directed the matter to be listed for continuation of hearing on the merits.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters employed by the respondent.

The respondent and the intervener union argued the application was untimely because a valid collective agreement already existed between them covering the employees.

The Board examined the intervener's membership evidence for the employees at the time the agreement was signed.

Although one employee was in arrears on dues and suspended from some privileges, the Board found he remained a member for the purpose of establishing representation entitlement.

Finding that the intervener represented a majority of the employees when the agreement was entered into, the Board held the collective agreement was valid and acted as a bar to the certification application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by failing to employ union members for scaling work and by subcontracting the work to non-union employees.

The work was actually performed by laid-off employees of the project owner (LOC) at the owner's insistence, to satisfy its own union.

Applying the seven-fold criteria for determining an employer-employee relationship, the Board found that LOC, not the respondent, exercised direction and control and was the true employer of the individuals performing the work.

As the respondent did not employ the workers or subcontract the work, the grievance was dismissed.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred between Arbis Construction Ltd. and Tony Azar Construction, and that they constituted one employer.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the reverse onus provisions in the Act violated section 11 of the Charter.

The Board dismissed the Charter challenge, finding the provisions were merely evidentiary.

On the merits, the Board found that Arbis, an insolvent general contractor, and Azar, a newly formed masonry business, were neither associated or related in their activities nor under common control or direction.

The applications were dismissed.

The complainant alleged that the respondent failed to pay industry fund assessments required by the provincial collective agreement, contrary to section 147(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent admitted liability for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector but argued that the complainant's delay in filing the complaint should limit its liability.

The Board found that the violation was of a continuing nature.

However, because the legal enforceability of such claims was uncertain until a specific Board decision in July 1980, the Board limited the respondent's liability to assessments that became due from August 1980 onwards.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The central issue was whether several employees should be classified as carpenters or labourers, given that they performed multiple types of work.

The majority of the Board relied on the respondent's coding system to determine that only four employees spent the majority of their time performing carpentry work during the representative period.

Because the union only filed membership evidence for one of those four employees, it lacked the requisite 45% support, and the application was dismissed.

A dissenting Board member argued that the coding system was unreliable and would have found sufficient membership support to grant certification.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Board for arbitration.

At the hearing, the applicants argued that a binding settlement had been reached between counsel prior to the hearing.

The respondent argued that its supervisor lacked the authority to instruct counsel to settle without the president's approval.

The Board held that where counsel holds themselves out as having authority to settle, and the other party has no notice of any limitation on that authority, the settlement is binding.

The Board found that a settlement was reached and ordered its implementation.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of bricklayers and stonemasons employed by the respondent municipality.

The respondent argued that an existing collective agreement with the intervener union covered these employees and acted as a bar to the application, seeking to introduce extrinsic evidence of negotiations to prove this intent.

The Board held that the collective agreement, which defined employees as those on the active payroll and lacked construction industry provisions, clearly did not cover construction bricklayers.

Finding no patent or latent ambiguity in the agreement, the Board refused to admit the extrinsic evidence.

Two unions, Local 1190 and Local 183, filed competing applications for certification regarding the respondent employer.

A representation vote was held, which Local 1190 won.

Subsequently, Local 1190 withdrew its application and membership evidence.

Local 183 argued it should be certified despite losing the vote, alleging improper collusive behaviour between the employer and Local 1190.

The Board dismissed Local 183's application, noting it did not win the representation vote and the Board had not heard all evidence regarding the allegations of improper conduct.

The Board also declined to impose the usual six-month bar on the unsuccessful unions due to the significant time that had elapsed since the vote.

The applicant union sought relief under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the appointment of a receiver and manager by a bank constituted a sale of a business and that the bank and receiver were related employers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the appointment of a receiver and manager by instrument did not constitute a disposition or sale of the business, making the section 63 application premature.

The Board also declined to make a related employer declaration under section 1(4), as there was no common ownership or control, and the application was merely an attempt to collect uncollectable debts from a solvent creditor rather than to preserve bargaining rights.

The complainant union alleged that the respondents violated section 146 of the Labour Relations Act by entering into an agreement or arrangement for concrete forming work in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector that was contrary to the provincial collective agreement.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that its relationship with the employer association was specifically exempted from the employee bargaining agency designation by the Minister of Labour under section 139 of the Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the exclusion in the designation meant the employees were not represented by affiliated bargaining agents for the purpose of section 146(2).

The complaint was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie violation of the Act.

The applicant union sought certification for two bricklayers employed by the respondent municipality.

The respondent argued it was not an employer in the construction industry and that the employees were maintenance workers covered by an existing collective agreement.

The Board found that the employees spent the majority of their time performing construction work, not maintenance.

The Board also held that the municipality, by undertaking construction work on its own behalf, operated a business in the construction industry.

The existing collective agreement was found not to cover construction work.

Certification was granted.

The applicant employer sought relief under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union and several of its officials and members engaged in, authorized, or encouraged an unlawful strike by instituting a ban on overtime work.

The Board found that the concerted withholding of overtime constituted a strike within the meaning of the Act, and because it occurred during the operation of a collective agreement, it was unlawful.

The Board issued declarations and cease and desist directions against the union, certain officials, and certain employees, but dismissed the application against the International union, the Canadian Labour Congress, and individuals for whom there was insufficient evidence of participation.

The applicant union alleged that the appointment of a court-appointed receiver and manager of a nursing home constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, making the receiver and the secured creditor successor employers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that a receiver and manager merely acts as an officer of the court to manage the business on behalf of creditors, and no disposition or transfer of the business occurred until the assets were subsequently sold to a third-party purchaser.

The applicant trade union sought certification for a bargaining unit of circulation and mailing room employees at the respondent's newspaper.

The parties agreed on the description of the departmental bargaining unit.

The Board noted its historical practice of deferring to the agreement of parties in the newspaper industry regarding departmental units, provided they are not patently irrational or unworkable.

Finding no reason to disregard the agreement and being satisfied with the membership evidence, the Board found the unit appropriate and granted the certificate.

The applicant union applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of a business from Shiffer-Hillman Company Limited to the respondent, 529592 Ontario Limited.

The predecessor company went into receivership, and its former vice-president incorporated the respondent to purchase assets, including the trade name, patterns, and some inventory, from the receiver.

The respondent operated from the same location, used the same telephone number, and employed several former employees, though it contracted out manufacturing and sold directly to the public.

The Board found that the transaction constituted a sale of a part of a business, as the respondent acquired essential components, notably the location and goodwill associated with the trade name, to carry on a restructured version of the predecessor's business.

The respondent was declared bound by the collective agreement.