R. A. Furness

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of plumbers and pipefitters employed by the respondent school board in the construction industry.

The respondent argued it was not an employer in the construction industry and that the work performed was maintenance, not construction.

The Board found that the respondent's program to replace obsolete radiators and thermostats constituted repair work, which falls within the definition of the construction industry under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that an employer whose principal business is not construction may still operate a business in the construction industry, and the applicant had sufficient membership support for certification.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and submitted confirmation documents as evidence of membership.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the documents did not indicate that the signatories had paid at least one dollar in initiation fees or monthly dues, as required by section 1(1)(l) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence of membership and dismissed the application.

The applicant union filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business by Chateau Gardens to the respondents, a court-appointed receiver and a secured creditor.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not obtained leave of the Supreme Court of Ontario, as required by the receiving order.

The Board held that it had exclusive jurisdiction under sections 106(1) and 108 of the Act, and that requiring leave of the court would constitute an impermissible questioning or restraining of the Board's proceedings.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection and directed the matter to be listed for a hearing on the merits.

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.

During a hearing, the applicant sought to prove documents produced under a subpoena duces tecum without calling the person who produced them as a witness, thereby avoiding cross-examination.

The Board initially ruled the documents must be proved by calling the person as a witness.

Upon reconsideration, the Board reviewed the historical and legal distinction between the ad testificandum and duces tecum aspects of a subpoena.

The Board revoked its previous ruling, holding that a person producing documents pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum does not need to be sworn as a witness and is not subject to cross-examination.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act by imposing a three-day suspension on the grievor for refusing to shut down a paper machine.

The grievor claimed he lacked the training to safely perform the shutdown.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the grievor had received the necessary training and that his refusal was actually motivated by a dispute over call-in pay and meal tickets, rather than genuine safety concerns.

The Board concluded that the suspension was a valid disciplinary response to insubordination and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant union applied for certification of construction labourers employed by the respondent in the residential sector.

The respondent argued that an existing working agreement with the Toronto Building and Construction Trades Council already covered these employees and sought to introduce extrinsic evidence of an oral understanding to that effect.

The Board refused to admit the extrinsic evidence, finding the written agreement unambiguously excluded residential construction.

The Board held that parties cannot contract out of the Labour Relations Act and that estoppel cannot prevent the operation of a public statute.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and authorized a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into its composition.

The complainant union filed grievances after the expiry of the previous collective agreement but during the statutory freeze periods triggered by its certification application and subsequent notice to bargain.

The employer refused to appoint an arbitrator, arguing the grievances were not arbitrable.

The union requested the Ontario Labour Relations Board to compel arbitration or hear the complaints itself under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declined to compel arbitration, noting a board of arbitration might lack jurisdiction without an active collective agreement.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction to hear the complaints as alleged violations of the statutory freeze under section 79.

The complainants, Local 46 and the Toronto Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council, brought a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding mechanical construction work at a Town of Vaughan project.

The work had been assigned to Simcoe Mechanical Contracting Limited, whose employees were represented by the Christian Labour Association of Canada (CLAC).

The complainants argued that area practice heavily favoured Local 46.

The Board considered various criteria, including collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, economy and efficiency, employer practice, and area practice.

While area practice favoured Local 46, the Board found that the collective bargaining relationship favoured CLAC, and that the dispute was essentially representational rather than jurisdictional.

The Board directed that the work continue to be assigned to members of CLAC.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent, a Quebec-based company, argued that its limited presence in Ontario and the application of the Quebec Construction decree made certification inappropriate.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the respondent's limited presence and the Quebec decree did not preclude certification under Ontario law.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board granted the application and issued certificates for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic area.

The respondent employer requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider and revoke a certification decision made three years earlier.

The employer claimed it had not received proper notice and had returned the Board's forms unread, asking for an explanation.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration without a hearing, finding that the employer had been properly served, had failed to read the clear instructions on the forms, and was the author of its own misfortune.

The Board held that the employer had not acted with due diligence and had not been denied natural justice.

The complainants requested a direction under section 91 of the Act regarding a work assignment dispute on a pipeline project.

The respondent unions raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) because the collective agreements required referring such disputes to a mutually selected tribunal.

The Board found that while one collective agreement contained a specific jurisdictional dispute mechanism, the other did not.

Therefore, the collective agreements did not establish a mutual dispute-settlement mechanism that would exclude the Board's jurisdiction.

The preliminary objection was dismissed and the matter was listed for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant, owner and general contractor of a hotel project, sought relief under section 135 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondents engaged in an unlawful strike by refusing to cross a picket line.

The picket line was established by a striking union and sanctioned by the building trades council.

The Board found that while the respondents' refusal to cross the picket line was in accordance with a common understanding based on union solidarity, there was no cessation of work because the sub-contractors had decided not to schedule work during the picketing.

Consequently, the respondents did not engage in a strike within the meaning of the Act, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board, alleging that the respondents were related or successor employers under the Labour Relations Act and were bound by a provincial collective agreement.

The Board found that the union had acquired bargaining rights for the respondent in 1974 but had made no attempt to negotiate a collective agreement since 1975.

The Board concluded that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights prior to the introduction of provincial bargaining in 1978.

Consequently, the grievance referral was dismissed.

A dissenting Board member would have found no abandonment.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer for Local 353 and the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council.

Local 353, previously bargaining through the Council, sought to bargain separately with the employer and gave notice of its withdrawal from the Council's bargaining unit.

The Board found that the Council acted merely as an agent for Local 353, not as a certified council of trade unions, and that Local 353 had not abandoned its individual bargaining rights.

The Board concluded that Local 353 provided proper notice under the Labour Relations Act and the collective agreement, and therefore the Minister had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer for both Local 353 and the Council (for the remaining unions).

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer violated a provincial collective agreement.

The respondent argued that it was not bound by the agreement, asserting that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights or was estopped from asserting them due to a four-and-a-half-year delay in enforcement.

The Board found that the respondent was bound by successive collective agreements by operation of law under the Labour Relations Act, including the province-wide collective agreement.

The Board rejected the abandonment and estoppel arguments, determining that a collective agreement was in effect and directing the matter to continue on the issue of damages.

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 referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to consider established industry practices when assigning work.

The respondents argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was a jurisdictional dispute that should be resolved by the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board.

The Board held that it has jurisdiction to interpret the language of the collective agreement, even if the grievance has jurisdictional overtones, and directed the matter to be listed for continuation of hearing.

During a certification application, the respondent's counsel failed to appear after an adjournment request was refused.

The applicant sought to introduce alleged prior statements of an absent witness as admissions against interest, which the Board refused due to their prejudicial value.

The applicant also requested the Board to certify facts to the Supreme Court for a bench warrant to enforce subpoenas against two absent witnesses.

The Board declined, ruling that the applicant must take responsibility for enforcing its own subpoenas.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide laid-off employees with their final wages and termination documents within 48 hours.

The employer had mailed the cheques, which arrived several days late.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the union's secretary had implicitly assured the employer during a telephone call that mailing the documents was satisfactory.

The Board held that the employer relied on this assurance, creating a promissory estoppel that prevented the union from enforcing the strict 48-hour time limit and claiming waiting time penalties.

A dissenting Board member would have upheld the grievance and awarded the penalty.