S. Liang

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the responding party general contractor violated the provincial collective agreement by subcontracting final cleanup work on a construction project to a non-union company.

The general contractor argued the final cleanup was maintenance work outside the construction industry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board upheld the grievance, finding that the final cleanup work was necessitated by the construction project and was part of the overall construction work undertaken by the general contractor.

The Board concluded the work was covered by the collective agreement and the general contractor violated the subcontracting clause.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that found the employer violated the collective agreement but declined to award damages due to a lack of evidence of actual loss.

The union argued that under the 'lost opportunity' theory, it did not need to prove that it had unemployed members available to perform the work.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that while the 'lost opportunity' theory allows for recovery where the outcome is uncertain, the aggrieved party must still prove it suffered a loss.

The Board found no obvious error or new policy issue warranting reconsideration.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze and failed to bargain in good faith.

Following the expiration of the collective agreement, the employer laid off unionized employees and subsequently hired non-union workers to perform bargaining unit work without applying the terms of the expired agreement.

The employer also presented proposals with significant wage cuts and resisted further negotiations, seeking to end its relationship with the union due to economic difficulties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated the statutory freeze under section 81 and failed to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered compensation for the section 81 violation and directed the employer to resume bargaining, declining the union's request to impose a collective agreement as a remedy.

The union applied to combine a newly certified part-time bargaining unit with an existing full-time bargaining unit under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing it would disrupt collective bargaining and force the reopening of the full-time collective agreement.

The Board directed the combination of the units, finding that a combined unit of full-time and part-time employees is deemed appropriate under the Act and would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining while reducing fragmentation.

The Board declined to order that the current collective agreement automatically apply to the part-time unit, leaving that issue for the parties to negotiate.

The applicant union applied for certification of a part-time bargaining unit at a nursing home, proposing to exclude registered nurses.

The responding party employer argued that registered nurses should be included.

The Board found that the proposed unit was appropriate, noting the industry practice of excluding registered nurses from service units and the Board's policy of mirroring part-time units with existing full-time units, which in this case excluded registered nurses.

The Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the parties had reached a binding oral settlement during a meeting with a Board Officer.

The applicant argued that the settlement was only tentative and that his former counsel lacked authority to bind him without his final approval of the written documents.

The Board found that a final oral settlement had been reached and that the applicant's former counsel had ostensible authority to bind him.

The Board exercised its discretion not to inquire further into the complaint.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance alleging that the responding employer violated the collective agreement by assigning the installation of modular office wall panels to another union without holding a proper mark-up meeting.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to follow the required mark-up procedures before commencing the work.

However, the Board declined to award damages for loss of opportunity because the applicant failed to provide evidence that it had unemployed members ready and available to perform the work at the relevant time.

A dissenting board member would have awarded damages, taking judicial notice of high unemployment in the construction trades.

The applicants, two construction trade unions, applied for certification to represent standard craft units of employees of the City of St. Thomas.

The City and the intervenor union, CUPE, argued the applications were untimely because a current collective agreement between the City and CUPE covered the employees in question.

The applicants contended that the CUPE agreement did not cover construction trades or, alternatively, that CUPE had abandoned its bargaining rights.

The Board found that the CUPE collective agreement's 'all employee' recognition clause applied to the outside workers performing construction tasks, and there was no evidence of abandonment.

The applications were dismissed as untimely.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred from Inplant Contractors Inc. to Flint Canada and Flint USA, or alternatively, that the companies were related employers under common control and direction.

Inplant, a unionized company, went into receivership, and its former officer and a key employee subsequently worked for the newly formed Flint Canada.

The Board found that Flint Canada was established to serve the pre-existing business of Flint USA, not to acquire Inplant's business.

The Board concluded that the hiring of the former Inplant personnel did not constitute a sale of a business.

Furthermore, the Board found that Inplant and Flint Canada were not under common control and direction.

The applications were dismissed.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees at Tate Andale Canada Inc. A group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board found that the petition did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes, given the recent unlawful dismissal of two key union organizers and the appearance of management approval during the petition's circulation.

The Board also dismissed the employer's allegation that the union used intimidation to secure membership cards, finding the evidence of the union's witness more credible.

Finally, the Board determined that a specific employee, Richard Grainger, belonged in the bargaining unit despite his unique terms of employment.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant, Local 2, sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to stay the operation of a sub-contracting clause in a collective agreement between the Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association (MTABA) and Labourers' Local 183.

Local 2 alleged that the clause, which required all bricklaying work to be performed by companies bound to Local 183 or Local 1, interfered with its bargaining rights in the residential sector.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that Local 2 failed to provide sufficient particulars regarding the source of its bargaining rights for the affected contractors.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the potential harm to Local 183 and MTABA from staying a freely negotiated collective agreement provision outweighed the speculative harm alleged by Local 2, particularly given Local 2's delay in bringing the application.

The union applied for an interim order under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices during an organizing drive by distributing and posting a letter that intimidated employees and counselled them to resign their union membership.

The Board granted the interim relief, ordering the employer to remove the letter from the workplace and refrain from communicating with employees to counsel them to resign their union membership, finding that the union made out an arguable case and that the balance of harm favoured preserving the union's right to a meaningful remedy pending the hearing of the main complaint.

The Practical Nurses Federation of Ontario applied for certification to represent a unit of registered and graduate nursing assistants at the Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital.

The Hospital raised a preliminary objection based on res judicata, arguing that the Board had recently dismissed a prior application between the same parties for the same bargaining unit, finding it inappropriate.

The applicant argued that material facts had changed since the prior decision.

The Board held that the facts relied upon as 'new' were anticipated in the prior decision and did not constitute a material change sufficient to permit re-litigation.

The application was dismissed on the basis of issue estoppel, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant employers filed a complaint concerning a work assignment dispute under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent Carpenters union requested that the Board defer the proceedings to private arbitration pursuant to an agreement between the Carpenters and the Labourers union.

The Board declined to defer the proceedings, noting that the applicant employers were not bound by the inter-union agreement and that proceeding before the Board would minimize the duplication of proceedings and ensure all interested parties could participate.

In a sector determination under section 153 of the Labour Relations Act, the Board addressed preliminary issues regarding the scope of the inquiry and admissible evidence.

The applicant union grieved that the construction of an underground concrete storage tank fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, while the respondent and intervener argued it was heavy engineering.

The Board ruled that evidence of province-wide industry practice regarding employee relations is admissible, rejecting arguments to limit evidence to local practice.

The Board also confined the sector determination to the specific work grieved (the storage tank), declining to expand the inquiry to undisputed road and sewer work on the same project.

The applicant union filed an application for certification to displace the incumbent union.

During the application process, the employer and the incumbent union negotiated and signed a renewal collective agreement.

The applicant argued that this violated the statutory freeze under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act and constituted unlawful employer support under section 49.

The Board held that the statutory freeze does not suspend the duty to bargain between an employer and an incumbent union.

The negotiation and conclusion of a renewal agreement do not, in and of themselves, violate the freeze or constitute unlawful employer support.

The application for certification was dismissed as untimely.

The union applied for certification to represent electricians working on a construction site where the respondent was the general contractor.

After the original electrical subcontractor went bankrupt, the respondent made an interim arrangement with the electricians to continue working at an hourly rate until a new subcontractor was found.

The Board found that during this interim period, the electricians were dependent contractors and therefore employees of the respondent for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board granted the certification application.

However, the Board dismissed the union's unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the subsequent lay-off of the electricians was due to the hiring of a new subcontractor and not motivated by anti-union animus.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration against the respondent municipality, alleging that work covered by their collective agreement was being performed by non-union members.

Two subcontractors, Bemar and Framing Design, sought to intervene in the proceedings and requested an adjournment to retain counsel.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding the subcontractors had sufficient notice.

The Board also denied intervener status, ruling that the subcontractors' interests were purely commercial and arose from separate contracts with the respondent, rather than from the collective agreement at issue.

The subcontractors subsequently requested reconsideration, which the Board directed them to support with written submissions.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to notify him of a meeting where his discharge grievance was dropped, and by failing to present medical evidence of his mental illness.

The union admitted the breach.

The Board ordered the grievance to proceed to arbitration.

The Board declined the complainant's request for sole carriage of the grievance, finding that the union's potential liability for damages did not warrant removing its normal role, but ordered that the complainant have a say in selecting the arbitrator and that joint counsel be retained.

A group of Registered Nursing Assistants (RNAs) filed a complaint alleging that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The RNAs claimed the union misled them by failing to disclose that a grievance settlement providing additional compensation might be reached shortly after they signed releases to obtain immediate severance pay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had no reason to anticipate a settlement at the time the releases were signed.

The Board concluded that the union's failure to mention the remote possibility of a monetary settlement was an honest oversight and did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.