R. W. Redford

The union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the employer failed to recognize the grievor as a Union Steward and discharged him without just cause.

The employer argued the grievor was discharged for insubordination and that the union was estopped from appointing him as a steward.

The Board found no insubordination and held the discharge was without just cause, ordering reinstatement with compensation.

However, the Board applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, finding the union had represented it would not appoint a new employee as a steward, and therefore was estopped from appointing the grievor to that role.

The applicant trade union sought to withdraw its application for certification because the respondent employer had gone out of business.

The intervener requested that the application be dismissed and a time bar imposed under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, as a representation vote had already been directed.

The Board dismissed the application but declined to impose a time bar, noting that the respondent was no longer in business, the construction industry context involves fluctuating workforces, and the applicant's membership evidence had not been fully tested due to unresolved issues regarding the representation votes.

A group of employees applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 51(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had given notice to bargain but failed to commence bargaining within sixty days.

The union did not appear at the hearing to provide an explanation for its failure to bargain.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion to terminate the union's bargaining rights without a representation vote.

In an application for certification, the Board directed a representation vote.

The intervener union requested the job site locations of the employees to campaign, but the respondent employer refused, offering instead to allow meetings at its premises.

The Board held that unions are entitled to know job site locations to verify the identity and work of employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board directed the respondent to provide the job site locations, failing which the Registrar would release the employees' names and addresses.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held.

The intervener challenged the vote, arguing it lacked proper notice and that the two employees who voted were not performing bargaining unit work.

The Board found that the intervener was the author of its own misfortune regarding notice by walking out of a meeting.

However, the Board agreed that the two employees were not eligible to vote because they were performing clean-up and painting work, not insulation work, on the date of the vote.

The Board set aside the vote and ordered a new representation vote to be held when the respondent employs persons in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the intervener union as the bargaining agent for insulation mechanics employed by the respondent.

The intervener opposed the application, alleging under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent employer had unlawfully hired employees to support the applicant and defeat the intervener's bargaining rights.

The Board found no evidence of a collusive arrangement or employer support, dismissing the section 12 allegations.

As the applicant demonstrated sufficient membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote.