W. Gibson

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer failed to follow hiring hall procedures for carpentry work.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights.

The Board found that the union had been completely inactive for a 12-year period, including a six-month period prior to the imposition of province-wide bargaining in 1978, despite obvious and extensive construction at the employer's site.

The majority concluded that the union's prolonged inactivity and subsequent attempt to organize the same employees demonstrated an abandonment of bargaining rights prior to the statutory province-wide scheme taking effect.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union brought an application alleging a sale of business and seeking a related employer declaration against several corporate respondents.

Despite being served with notice and a Board order to produce documents and adduce evidence, the respondents failed to appear.

The Board relied on the union's evidence, including corporate records and a labour and material payment bond, to find that the respondents were under common control and direction and that a sale of business had occurred.

The Board declared the respondents to be a single employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of business and that the two corporate respondents were related employers.

The respondents conceded they carried on related activities under common control but argued the application should be dismissed due to the union's delay.

The Board found that the union had actual knowledge of the non-union company's operations and its employment of non-union plumbers for several years but failed to act promptly or put the employer on notice.

Due to this delay and the potential prejudice to unrepresented employees, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to make a single employer declaration and dismissed both applications.

The applicant union applied under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that the respondents, Century Store Fixtures Ltd., Century Interiors Ltd., and Jasper Construction Inc., be treated as one employer.

The union argued that Century, a unionized interior contractor, engaged in general contracting when its carpenters worked on Jasper's sites under Jasper's direction.

The Board found that Century and Jasper operated in different markets and were not engaged in associated or related activities.

The Board concluded there was no erosion of bargaining rights, as the carpenters were covered by the collective agreement at all times, and dismissed the application.

During an examination conducted by a Labour Relations Officer, the intervener objected to the applicant's cross-examination questions, arguing they improperly referenced non-existent testimony to cast doubt on the witness's credibility.

The intervener submitted a letter confirming the objection.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to intervene, noting that its practice is to deal with such objections after receiving the Officer's report and the parties' submissions.

The Board further observed that questions raising issues of credibility are not generally improper.

The applicant union sought declarations that Duplex Electrical Ltd. was a successor employer to Deluxe Electrical Contractor Ltd. under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that they were related employers under subsection 1(4).

Deluxe, a unionized electrical contractor, ceased operations and transferred its tangible assets and the services of its principal to Duplex, a non-unionized parallel business.

The Board found that the transfer of assets and the principal's expertise in a bid-oriented market constituted a sale of a business under section 63.

Consequently, Duplex was bound by the collective agreement, and the subsection 1(4) application was dismissed as unnecessary.

The respondent employer applied for reconsideration of the Board's decision to certify the applicant union, alleging that employees did not receive proper notice of the application because the employer failed to post the required notices.

The Board noted that the applicant union also failed to properly complete and file an Advice of Posting Card.

Given the lack of evidence that employees received proper notice, the Board declined to dismiss the reconsideration application without a hearing and directed that the matter be listed for a hearing to receive evidence on the notice issue.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a crane operator for an alleged failure to follow safe operating procedures resulting in a crane upset, both parties issued summonses duces tecum demanding the production of various documents.

The respondents objected to producing records for all cranes across the province, arguing it was an improper discovery attempt.

The Board applied the test that documents sought via a summons need only be 'arguably relevant' to the issues.

The Board directed the respondents to produce specific reports, log books, and policies related to the incident and the specific crane involved, but declined to order province-wide records or the union's training records at this preliminary stage, finding them overly broad or not yet demonstrably relevant.

The complainant, a journeyman sheetmetal worker and health and safety representative, alleged he was laid off in reprisal for his health and safety activities, contrary to section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer claimed the layoff was due to a shortage of work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer failed to discharge its reverse onus to prove that no part of the decision to lay off the complainant was motivated by his legitimate health and safety activities.

The Board noted the foreman's negative reactions to the complainant's safety duties and the lack of prior performance complaints.

The complaint was allowed, and the employer was ordered to reinstate and compensate the complainant.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for ironworkers employed by the respondent.

The Board had previously extended the terminal date to ensure proper notice to employees.

Prior to the new terminal date, the applicant filed additional membership evidence.

The respondent objected to the admission of this new evidence, arguing the extension was solely for notice purposes.

The Board rejected the respondent's argument, holding that employees are free to express their wishes up to the terminal date, and accepted the evidence.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support of over fifty-five percent, the Board issued certificates for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector, as well as all other sectors in the appropriate geographic areas.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint after the employer laid off 21 employees immediately upon learning of the union's organizing campaign.

The employer conceded that the layoff violated the Labour Relations Act but argued it had been planned for two days later due to financial difficulties.

The Board found that the sudden layoff of 25% of the proposed bargaining unit, without notice and just before a union meeting, would prevent the true wishes of the employees from being ascertained in a vote.

Finding that the union had adequate membership support for collective bargaining, the Board granted certification under section 8 of the Act and ordered compensation for the laid-off employees.

The applicant union referred grievances to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employers violated the collective agreement by reducing their hourly remittances to the union's benefit fund.

The employers argued that the enactment of the Employer Health Tax Act, which eliminated OHIP premiums and imposed a payroll tax, frustrated the collective agreement and resulted in unjust enrichment for the fund, as the fund no longer had to pay OHIP premiums.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the collective agreement required a fixed hourly remittance and did not allocate a specific portion to OHIP premiums.

The Board found no frustration of contract or unjust enrichment, and ordered the employers to remit the full amounts owed with interest.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work by a subcontractor.

The respondent union had initially filed a grievance demanding the work, but later withdrew it.

The respondent union then brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction or should decline to inquire into the complaint since there was no longer a demand to change the work assignment.

The Board held that, assuming it had jurisdiction, it was appropriate to exercise its discretion not to inquire further into the complaint because the underlying dispute had disappeared with the withdrawal of the grievance.

The complaint was dismissed.

The parties requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled hearing on consent.

The Board granted the adjournment sine die for a period not to exceed one year, but issued a strong warning to the parties and counsel about the squandering of the Board's limited resources caused by late adjournment requests.

The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's application for certification and impose a bar on future applications, arguing that the union had filed six applications for substantially the same group of employees in two months.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to dismiss the application and impose a bar.

The Board found that while the union's slipshod manner of filing and withdrawing applications was not condoned, the mere frequency of the applications in these circumstances did not constitute an abuse of process or warrant depriving employees of their right to trade union representation.

The complainants, representing plumbers and electricians, challenged the general contractor's assignment of the installation of patient service modules at a hospital construction project to carpenters and labourers.

While area past practice strongly favoured assigning such work to plumbers and electricians via subcontracts, the general contractor had no collective agreement with the complainants and had assigned the work to its own employees, with whom it had collective agreements.

The Board upheld the assignment to the carpenters and labourers, noting that directing the work to the complainants would effectively require the general contractor to subcontract the work due to the electricians' restrictive hiring practices.

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

The respondent requested a hearing, arguing it was not actively engaged in the construction industry and that the project was of short duration.

The Board disposed of the application without a hearing, finding that the respondent's admissions in its reply established it was engaged in construction activities.

The Board amended the geographic description of the bargaining unit to reflect the actual location of the project in a 'white area' and issued certificates to the applicant.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking a determination on whether they could deduct amounts required under the new Employer Health Tax Act from their remittances to the union's Health and Welfare Fund.

The respondent union raised preliminary objections regarding the Board's jurisdiction and the arbitrability of the grievance.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding it premature as no concrete incident or default had yet occurred.

The Board held that the applicants were essentially seeking an advisory opinion on a hypothetical situation, which is not the intended purpose of the statutory arbitration mechanism.

The applicant union requested that the Board reconsider its certification decision and vary the certificates to include a clarity note regarding cement finishing work.

The Board declined the request, noting that a clarity note is not part of the bargaining unit description and that the certificates already state they must be read subject to the terms of the Board's decision, which includes the clarity note.

The Electrical Power Systems Construction Association, Ontario Hydro, and Gilbert Steel Limited filed complaints against the Iron Workers Local 721 regarding an alleged unlawful strike arising from the rodmen's refusal to wear belly-hooks.

The union filed a cross-complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging the employer unlawfully penalized the rodmen for refusing unsafe work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the employer's applications, exercising its discretion not to grant relief since the work stoppage had ceased and damages could be pursued through grievance arbitration.

The Board also dismissed the union's health and safety complaint, finding that the rodmen's blanket refusal to wear the belly-hook—even when their assigned work did not require its use—was not based on a reasonable belief that merely wearing the equipment was likely to endanger themselves or others.