A.M. Minsky

The union appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed an Ontario Labour Relations Board certification order and remitted the matter for reconsideration.

The Divisional Court had found the Board erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider the employer's late-filed response.

Before the appeal was heard, the Board reconsidered the matter, accepted the late response, and revoked the certification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the union's appeal as moot, finding no live controversy remained and declining to exercise its discretion to hear the case on the merits.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of security glazing installation work at a correctional facility.

The work had been assigned to the applicant's members, but the responding Glaziers union claimed the work.

The Board dismissed preliminary motions regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and requests for adjournment.

On the merits, the Board found that the overwhelming area practice in Board Area 8 favoured the Glaziers for interior installation of transparent materials.

The Board directed the employers to assign the disputed work to members of the Glaziers.

In a series of construction industry grievances concerning scaffolding work, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued case management directions.

The Board ordered that the newest grievance proceed first, as it offered the best opportunity to litigate based on recent events.

The Board granted the Carpenters union status to participate in the new grievance but denied them participation in the older, bundled grievances.

The Board also limited the scope of documentary production required from the responding employer to ensure an efficient hearing process.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined a jurisdictional dispute between the Carpenters and Labourers unions regarding the assignment of tending work associated with the erection and dismantling of scaffolding by Doug Chalmers Construction Limited.

The Board held that general tending work is prima facie within the jurisdiction of construction labourers, while other tending work falls to carpenters.

The Board ordered that general tending work must be assigned to labourers only if there is sufficient work to occupy a labourer for a minimum of four hours during a shift; otherwise, the employer may assign it at its discretion.

The applicants, Millwright Local 1410 and U.A. Local 221, applied for certification for construction employees of Alcan Aluminium Limited.

Alcan and intervening unions argued the bargaining units should be restricted to Alcan's Chemicals division or include 'save and except' language to protect existing bargaining rights held by the Steelworkers and Machinists at other plants.

The Board found it inappropriate to restrict the units to a specific division but agreed to include specific 'save and except' language to preserve existing bargaining rights.

The Board also dismissed Alcan's motion to dismiss the U.A.'s application based on alleged misrepresentations by the union that it would not seek certification, finding no legal basis for estoppel or fraud.

Certificates were ordered to issue.

The Labourers' union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of tending work for carpenters erecting and dismantling scaffolding.

The employer, Doug Chalmers Construction Limited, argued it should have discretion to assign the work based on economy and efficiency.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors, finding that employer and area practice, along with a prior trade agreement, favoured the Labourers' claim.

The Board ordered the employer to assign at least one construction labourer to tend carpenters on all scaffolding jobs in issue, while retaining discretion to assign additional labourers as needed.

One Board member dissented, emphasizing the employer's right to assign work based on cost and efficiency.

Five work assignment complaints were brought before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the handling and installation of enclosures for finned tube convectors.

The parties agreed to have the Board first determine the applicability and effect of the 1956 Interim National Agreement between the two unions.

The Board found that while the agreement applied to the work in dispute, it was not dispositive of the complaints because the Sheet Metal Workers had only recently sought to rely on it.

The Board concluded that other criteria, such as area and employer past practice, must also be considered, and directed a further hearing to determine whether the complaints should proceed en bloc or individually.

The complainants, members of IBEW Local 105, alleged that the respondents violated the Labour Relations Act by performing industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector construction work under a maintenance agreement rather than the provincial agreement.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainants lacked standing because they were not employees in the bargaining unit, had not worked under the agreement, and had not been refused employment.

Consequently, their interests were too remote to establish a violation of the Act.

In a certification application involving multiple unions at a remote mining project, the Ontario Labour Relations Board extended the terminal date because the isolated location and employee work schedules prevented adequate notice.

The Board declined to impose new access rules for union organizers, maintaining the existing arrangements.

Additionally, the Board dismissed allegations that the employer violated section 13 of the Labour Relations Act by informing one union of a rival union's presence, finding such communication practical and not indicative of improper support.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a nominee to an arbitration board on behalf of the employer.

The employer objected to the appointment, arguing that the collective agreement only applied to the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, whereas the grievances related to non-construction work.

The Board found that through its membership in the Ontario Painting Contractors Association, the employer had authorized the association to bargain on its behalf for both construction and non-construction work.

Consequently, the provincial agreement bound the employer for non-construction work as well.

The Board advised the Minister that he had the authority to appoint a nominee.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the union challenged the inclusion of five individuals on the employer's list of employees.

A labour relations officer was appointed to inquire into the dispute.

The employer failed to call a witness before the officer but sought to call the witness before the Board.

The Board, by majority, allowed the witness to testify.

Based on the evidence, the Board concluded that two of the challenged individuals were construction labourers employed on the application date, while the other three were not.

The Board deferred the determination of the identity of the true employer and the related employer application, directing the matter to be relisted for hearing.