R. McMurdo

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents, a livestock feed distributor and two vehicle leasing/driver supply companies, constituted a single employer.

The union argued that the feed distributor's decision to contract out its transportation needs to the other respondents, who hired many of the previous drivers, created a related employer situation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that while the entities might be under common control or direction, there were no compelling labour relations reasons to exercise its discretion to make the declaration.

The Board noted the feed distributor had no financial interest in the other companies and did not exercise sufficient control over their labour relations.

The complainant union filed unfair labour practice complaints against Ontario Hydro, EPSCA, and several construction trade unions, alleging violations of multiple sections of the Labour Relations Act arising from the implementation of a Maintenance Assist Agreement for nuclear reactor retubing work.

Ontario Hydro and EPSCA brought a motion to dismiss the complaints.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board allowed the motion and dismissed the complaints, finding that the dispute was fundamentally a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment rather than a representational issue or a violation of bargaining rights under the Act.

A dissenting member would have allowed the complaint to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging violations of sections 48, 49, 64, 66, 67, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act, arising from Ontario Hydro assigning nuclear reactor retubing work to members of various construction trade unions under Maintenance Assist Agreements.

The respondent trade unions brought a motion to dismiss the complaint against them.

The Board granted the motion, finding that sections 64, 66, and 67(1) apply only to employers or their agents, not trade unions.

The Board further held that section 49 does not apply to multiple unions, the section 70 allegations lacked particulars and did not involve coercion to refrain from exercising rights, and the section 48 and 67(2) allegations were essentially an attempt to convert a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment into a representational issue.

The complaint against the respondent trade unions was dismissed.