W. Gibson

The complainant union applied for an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act regarding a jurisdictional dispute over the dismantling, transport, and reassembly of shelving.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union threatened an unlawful strike if the work was not reassigned to its members, resulting in the layoff of labourers.

The Board declined to make an interim order because the disputed work was scheduled to be completed by the end of the business day, rendering any order academic.

The respondent employer requested reconsideration of the Board's decision to certify the applicant union, arguing that two of the employees who applied for membership were no longer employed.

The Board denied the request, noting that in construction industry certification applications, the relevant date for determining the list of employees is the date the application is made.

Subsequent events, such as layoffs or dismissals, do not justify reconsidering a certification decision.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a Board decision directing a representation vote, arguing the Board erred in including two equipment mechanics in the construction industry bargaining unit.

The union submitted that the mechanics worked primarily in the shop and should be excluded based on prior Board jurisprudence.

The majority of the Board dismissed the request, affirming that under section 117(b) of the Act, mechanics who regularly perform repair work both at the construction site and in the shop are commonly associated in their work with on-site employees.

A dissenting Board member would have granted reconsideration to recognize separate units for shop mechanics and site mechanics.

During a Labour Relations Officer's inquiry into the list and composition of a bargaining unit, the parties requested an adjournment to schedule a Board hearing for viva voce evidence regarding a serious credibility issue.

The Board declined to interrupt the inquiry, noting that credibility issues can typically be resolved by scrutinizing the verbatim transcript of the Officer's proceedings and hearing subsequent oral submissions.

The Board directed the Officer to continue the examination and the parties to adduce all evidence, including on credibility, before the Officer.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's asphalt plant operations.

The parties disputed whether six seasonal employees engaged in preparatory work at the plant/shop should be included in the bargaining unit.

The majority of the Board found that these employees were covered by the existing Kingston area agreement for construction operations, as they were construction employees temporarily preparing equipment.

Consequently, they were excluded from the proposed bargaining unit.

A representation vote was ordered for the remaining eligible employees.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for glaziers employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The respondent disputed the employee status of three individuals, arguing they were employees of another company, independent contractors, or moonlighting contrary to a collective agreement.

The Board applied the fourfold test and the organization test, finding that the three individuals were employees of the respondent on the date of the application.

As the union had the requisite membership support, the Board issued the certificates.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The parties disputed whether seven employees were in the bargaining unit on the application date.

Applying the Gilvesy test, the Board excluded three employees who spent the majority of their time as truck drivers and two who were not engaged in construction work on the application date.

However, the Board included two equipment mechanics who regularly performed repair work both on-site and in the shop, finding them commonly associated in their work with on-site employees under section 117(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

A representation vote was ordered.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent requested a hearing, arguing that its current workforce was unrepresentative due to a seasonal build-up of employees expected in the spring.

The Board exercised its discretion under the Labour Relations Act to decline a hearing and refused to consider the anticipated build-up, noting the short-term and seasonal nature of employment in the construction industry.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board issued the requested certificates.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The employer objected to the appointment, arguing that while it had granted voluntary recognition, no collective agreement had been entered into and the parties had not yet met to bargain as required by section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that under section 16 of the Act, the Minister has the authority to appoint a conciliation officer based on the voluntary recognition agreement alone, regardless of whether a collective agreement was subsequently reached or whether the parties had met face-to-face to bargain.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer laid off four employees due to their union organizing activities.

The employer claimed the layoffs were for legitimate business reasons due to a downturn in sales.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act, as the timing of the layoffs immediately followed the employer's discovery of the organizing campaign and the employer's evidence lacked credibility.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the laid-off employees with compensation and directed the posting of a notice.

The Board also granted the union's application for certification, finding it had the support of more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union filed a construction industry certification application.

The respondent, a non-profit service organization, argued it was not the 'employer' of the workers on its recreation centre project, asserting that the federal and provincial governments funding the project under 'make-work' programs were the true employers or joint venturers.

The Board applied the York Condominium tests to determine employer status.

Despite the government funding and controls, the Board found that the respondent exercised fundamental control over the incidents of employment and was therefore the employer within the meaning of section 117(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A dispute arose regarding the composition of the bargaining unit, specifically whether engineering staff should be included.

The Board appointed an officer to inquire into the bargaining unit composition and the managerial status of certain employees.

The applicant union objected to the continued participation of employee objectors, arguing their standing was limited to the voluntariness of their petition.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the rules of natural justice and the Board's procedures entitle affected employees to notice and an opportunity to make representations on all issues in a certification application, not just membership support.

The respondent requested the substitution of a Board Officer appointed to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of certain employees, alleging bias, and sought a hearing to establish this bias.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, noting that a Board Officer merely compiles a verbatim transcript of evidence and makes no findings of fact or law.

The Board found no indication that the alleged bias affected the transcript and directed the examination to continue.

The applicant, a designated employer bargaining agency, filed a complaint alleging that the respondent companies and trade unions violated the Labour Relations Act by continuing to work and supply employees during a lawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The respondents argued that pneumatic control work was governed by a separate national agreement and fell outside the provincial agreement.

The Board found that the respondent companies perform pneumatic control installation work within the ICI sector, which is a specialization of the plumbing and pipe fitting trade.

The Board declared the national agreement null and void in the ICI sector, but delayed the effect of the declaration until the expiration of the current provincial agreement to allow the parties to integrate the work.

The respondent requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision declaring M.J. Guthrie Construction Limited and Rosedale Construction to be a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued there was insufficient evidence that the applicant council had acquired the jurisdiction of the predecessor council, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to make such a finding.

The Board found there was sufficient evidence of the transfer of jurisdiction via a charter from the AFL-CIO, and that the common law rules regarding the merger of voluntary associations did not apply to subordinate chartered councils.

The application for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant union applied for certification of construction labourers employed by the respondent in the residential sector.

The respondent argued that an existing working agreement with the Toronto Building and Construction Trades Council already covered these employees and sought to introduce extrinsic evidence of an oral understanding to that effect.

The Board refused to admit the extrinsic evidence, finding the written agreement unambiguously excluded residential construction.

The Board held that parties cannot contract out of the Labour Relations Act and that estoppel cannot prevent the operation of a public statute.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and authorized a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into its composition.

The Board reconsidered its prior decision certifying Local 183 because Local 1190 did not receive notice of the application due to a postal strike.

The Board revoked the original certificate and issued an amended one, recognizing that a collective agreement binding Local 1190 and the employer acted as a partial bar for high-rise residential projects.

The Board also found that a sale of part of a business occurred between Camay Carpentry Limited and J.C. Carpentry, binding the latter to the existing collective agreement.

However, the Board declined to declare the respondents a single employer under section 1(4) of the Act, finding no useful labour relations purpose.

The applicant union council sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against M. J. Guthrie Construction Limited and Rosedale Construction, and referred a grievance under section 124.

The Board found that the two companies were under common control and direction.

Although they had operated side-by-side for over twenty years, the recent phasing out of the unionized company and the performance of its work by the non-unionized company threatened to erode existing bargaining rights.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration to protect these rights.

However, the Board dismissed the section 124 grievance, finding that the historical working agreement relied upon was null and void in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector due to the provincial bargaining requirements of section 146 of the Act.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the collective agreement had expired and the applicant was no longer a party to it.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the grievance was founded on an incident that occurred during the existence of the collective agreement and was filed within the mandatory time limits.

The Board held that the right to refer the grievance to arbitration crystallized during the term of the agreement, and the matter was referred to the Registrar for listing for a further hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent and the intervener union argued the application was untimely because they had entered into an 'all employee' collective agreement that covered the labourers.

The Board found that the intervener had only been certified to represent equipment operators and did not represent a majority of the labourers when the broader collective agreement was signed.

The Board declared under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act that the intervener was not entitled to represent the labourers, setting aside the collective agreement as it applied to them.

The Board then found the applicant had filed sufficient membership evidence and granted the application for certification.