Robert Herman

The applicant union sought interim relief to prevent the exclusion of certain employees from the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act pending a decision on the merits.

The Board held that while section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 limits interim orders to procedural matters, section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants the Board a broader, general power to make interim orders related to its jurisdiction, which prevails due to the override provision in section 32 of the SPPA.

However, the Board declined to grant interim relief in this case, primarily because the applicant was unwilling to proceed expeditiously with a hearing on the merits.

The applicant union filed a certification application and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding party employer.

The employer's president requested an adjournment on medical grounds, which the Board denied, finding the medical evidence of stress and anxiety insufficient to justify delaying the peremptory hearing.

On the merits, the Board found that the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by demanding employees sign anti-union statements, threatening to close the business, and laying off union supporters.

Concluding that a representation vote would not reflect the employees' true wishes and that no other remedy was sufficient, the Board granted automatic certification under section 11 of the Act.

The applicant union alleged that the responding employer unlawfully used replacement workers during a strike, contrary to section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer raised a preliminary objection regarding a technical error in the corporate name on the Minister's 'No Board' report, which the Board dismissed, finding the employer had received and acted upon the notice.

On the main issue, the union had conducted a single strike vote among all its members who worked in the sector, rather than limiting the vote to the employees of the responding employer, with whom it was bargaining individually.

The Board held that under section 73.1(2), when an employer bargains individually outside the ICI sector and without accreditation, only the votes of that specific employer's employees may be counted to determine if the required 60 percent authorization was achieved.

Because the union could not establish that 60 percent of the responding employer's employees authorized the strike, the preconditions of section 73.1 were not met, and the application failed.

The applicant Ontario Construction Secretariat brought complaints against the responding unions for failing to remit payments required under O. Reg. 187/93.

The responding unions raised a preliminary constitutional challenge, arguing the regulation imposed an unconstitutional indirect tax and violated their freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Board dismissed the constitutional challenges, finding that the regulation of labour relations is within provincial jurisdiction and the required payments are valid administrative fees ancillary to a provincial regulatory scheme, not a tax.

Relying on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence, the Board also held that compelled payments do not infringe the freedom of association.

During a certification application in the construction industry, a dispute arose over a Board Officer's procedural ruling allowing the responding party to introduce certain documents and call witnesses.

The applicant objected on several grounds, including the rule in Browne and Dunn.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board upheld the Officer's ruling, noting that under section 105(2) of the Labour Relations Act, Board Officers have the authority to make rulings on the admissibility of evidence.

The Board emphasized that it will not interfere with an Officer's procedural directions absent a compelling reason, and that Officers should focus on obtaining arguably relevant evidence without taking an unduly technical approach.

The applicant union sought damages under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act for a breach of the subcontracting clause in its collective agreement, following a Board decision in a jurisdictional dispute that the work should have been assigned to its members.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that damages will generally not be awarded for an incorrect work assignment where the employer or general contractor acted reasonably in the face of conflicting collective agreement obligations.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the responding party acted unreasonably in its initial assignment.

The applicants, the Painters union, filed a complaint concerning a work assignment for the removal of lead-contaminated plaster.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held a consultation and determined that the work in dispute should have been assigned to the Labourers union.

The Board found that the Labourers had the relevant practice in the Board area and significantly greater experience with plaster removal, and declined to sanction a different procedure merely because the plaster contained lead.

During examinations before a Board Officer in a construction industry certification application, counsel for the responding employer refused to commence cross-examination, claiming surprise at the evidence-in-chief and requesting an adjournment.

The Board Officer directed counsel to proceed, but counsel refused and requested a Board ruling.

The Board upheld the Officer's direction, noting that parties are not required to disclose evidence in advance and that failing to follow an Officer's procedural direction is done at a party's peril.

However, because no meaningful hearing time was lost, the Board permitted the responding party a second opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the next scheduled date.

The applicant union alleged that the responding employers' association breached a subcontracting clause in their collective agreement.

The clause required the association to subcontract bricklaying only to companies in contractual relations with the applicant or another specific union, provided the two unions formed a 'common Union' by a specified deadline.

The unions formed a certified council of trade unions to meet this requirement.

The Board held that a certified council of trade unions did not constitute a 'common Union' within the meaning of the agreement, as the two unions maintained separate legal and practical existences.

Consequently, the subcontracting clause expired.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification, which was sent by private courier on the application date but received the following day.

The Board ruled the petition was untimely under section 8(4) of the Labour Relations Act and Rule 8, as it was not received by the Board or sent by registered mail on or before the application date.

The Board also dismissed allegations of union misconduct in collecting membership evidence, finding they did not establish a prima facie case.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted the certification.

During a lawful strike by cleaning staff employed by Modern Building Cleaning at the Ontario Science Centre, the union alleged that both Modern and the Centre breached the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Centre's management had picked up garbage, and Modern had introduced new cleaning machinery.

On preliminary objections, the Board dismissed the allegations against the Centre, finding no prima facie case that it acted 'on behalf of' Modern.

The Board also dismissed the allegation that introducing new machinery breached section 73.1, as the statute does not prohibit the use of machinery to perform struck work.

The remaining allegations regarding bargaining unit personnel performing struck work were allowed to proceed, after which the parties settled.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process his harassment grievance to arbitration.

At the hearing, after the applicant testified, the Board entertained a non-suit motion without requiring the union to elect whether to call evidence.

The Board found that the applicant had failed to provide the union or the employer with any details of his harassment allegations despite repeated requests and opportunities to do so.

The Board concluded the union's decision not to proceed to arbitration was reasonable and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against his union and former employer, alleging multiple breaches of the Labour Relations Act over a seven-year period.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, including that the Vice-Chair lacked jurisdiction to sit alone and that the complaint should be dismissed for undue delay.

The Vice-Chair ruled he had jurisdiction to sit alone as an administrative decision by the Chair.

On the issue of delay, the Board dismissed most of the allegations, noting the critical importance of timeliness in the construction industry and hiring hall context.

However, the Board allowed the allegation regarding the applicant's removal from the hiring hall list following his expulsion from the union to proceed, finding the nine-month delay was not fatal given the severe impact of the removal and the ongoing internal union appeal.

The applicants filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of piping work for a dust control system by the employer.

The responding union claimed the work based on a trade agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the trade agreement did not apply to dust control systems and that the prevailing practice was to award such work to Sheet Metal Workers.

The Board upheld the employer's assignment of the work to the Sheet Metal Workers.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the labour relations between Charterways Transportation Limited and its unions fall within federal or provincial jurisdiction.

Charterways operates bus services across Ontario, including regular extra-provincial charters.

The unions argued that each local branch constituted a separate provincial undertaking.

The Board applied the test for federal undertakings and concluded that the core undertaking is the province-wide bus services, not the individual branches.

Because the province-wide undertaking includes regular and continuous extra-provincial charter activity, the Board advised that the labour relations between the parties fall within federal jurisdiction.

The Labourers' and the Carpenters disputed the assignment of erecting wooden hoarding with a canopy on a demolition project in Windsor.

The employer, Delsan Demolition, had assigned the work to the Labourers' based on a provincial demolition agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that demolition is a subset of the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector, and that local Board Area practice should govern.

Finding that the prevailing practice in Board Area No. 1 for this specific type of hoarding was to assign the work to the Carpenters, the Board directed the employer to reassign the initial construction and erection of the hoarding to the Carpenters.

The applicant union sought interim relief in a dispute over bargaining rights at A & P stores.

The Board had previously ordered the status quo maintained regarding local union representation.

The applicant alleged the employer breached this by cancelling leaves of absence for its supporters while maintaining them for the rival union's supporters, and by allowing the rival union to designate new representatives.

The Board granted interim relief, directing that customary union representatives continue to handle workplace issues and ordering the employer to reinstate the cancelled leaves of absence to ensure neutrality pending the final decision on bargaining rights.

The Ironworkers filed a jurisdictional complaint against Comstock Canada and the Millwrights regarding the assignment of work related to material handling systems.

Prior to the consultation, the Ironworkers and the employer settled, but the Millwrights did not.

The Board ruled that the consultation would proceed because a jurisdictional dispute between the two unions still existed.

The Board determined that the work in dispute included the entire chain of work, from dismantling to installation.

Ultimately, the Board directed that the work be assigned to a composite crew consisting of equal numbers of Ironworkers and Millwrights, performing all functions interchangeably, and made the order binding on future jobs in Board Area #1.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of production employees.

The employer and a group of objecting employees challenged the reliability of the union's membership evidence, alleging misrepresentation and language barriers.

The Board dismissed these objections as insufficiently particularized or not raising matters that would invalidate the cards.

The parties disputed the inclusion of several positions in the bargaining unit.

The Board ruled that production facilitators, supervisor trainees, and engineers were included, while blenders and quality control staff were excluded as technical employees.

The Board also held that employees of a newly created division (Shrader/Malcolm) shared a sufficient community of interest with the production employees and were included in the unit.

An interim certificate was issued, with a Board Officer appointed to inquire into the remaining disputed position of office custodian.

One Board Member dissented regarding the inclusion of the Shrader/Malcolm employees.

Following a prior decision finding a sale of part of a business from St. Mary's Hospital to Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital and an unfair labour practice, the Board determined the effective date for terminating the applicant's bargaining rights.

The Board held it has jurisdiction under section 64(6) of the Labour Relations Act to make its declarations retroactive to the date of the sale to prevent labour relations instability.

The Board also ordered a remedy for the section 67 breach, directing the respondent to offer the 74 newly-created positions to the appropriate nurses from a combined pool, with potential damages subject to mitigation.