A. M. Minsky, Q. C.

The Greater Essex County District School Board applied under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the Painters' Provincial Collective Agreement, claiming it was a non-construction employer with no construction employees on the application date.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer unlawfully laid off a painter days before the application to ensure no construction employees were working.

The Board found the layoff was a discharge motivated by a desire to facilitate the decertification application, violating sections 70 and 72(a).

Consequently, under section 1(2), the discharged painter was deemed an employee on the application date.

Furthermore, the Board found that another employee performing painting work on the application date was engaged in construction, not maintenance.

The decertification application was dismissed, and the unfair labour practice complaint was allowed.

The applicant sought declarations terminating the bargaining rights of construction trade unions under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Preliminary issues arose regarding the late filing of a response by Local 1410 and requests for production and particulars.

The Board exercised its discretion to accept the late response, noting the applicant's prior consent to an extension and the lack of prejudice.

The Board also ordered the applicant to produce lists of construction projects, contractors, and employees engaged in relevant trades, finding the information arguably relevant to whether the applicant is a non-construction employer.

During a hearing, the employer sought to introduce a secretly tape-recorded telephone conversation between its vice-president and a union steward.

The union objected on the grounds that the steward was not an officer or agent of the union, and thus the conversation did not fall under the admissions against interest exception to the hearsay rule.

The Board upheld the objection, finding that the steward was not acting within the scope of his stewardship or authorized to make admissions on behalf of the union.

The evidence was ruled inadmissible.

The applicant employer association filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act challenging the respondent union's unilateral implementation of a '50/50' hiring system.

For many years, employers had been permitted to 'name-hire' any union member without restriction.

The employers argued that the union was estopped from altering this past practice.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement designated the union as the sole agent for supplying employees and did not guarantee a right to name-hire.

The Board held that promissory estoppel did not apply because the union had previously interrupted the practice, putting employers on notice, and the employers had unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a contractual right to name-hire.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined a preliminary issue in a jurisdictional dispute regarding the installation of storm sewers and manholes on private property at a General Motors plant.

The complainant argued the work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, while the respondents argued it fell within the sewers and watermains sector.

The Board held that the work characteristics of installing sewers on private property are identical to those of installing sewers under public roads or in subdivisions.

Consequently, the Board declared that the work in dispute comes within the sewers and watermains sector of the construction industry.

The complainant union filed unfair labour practice complaints against Ontario Hydro, EPSCA, and several construction trade unions, alleging violations of multiple sections of the Labour Relations Act arising from the implementation of a Maintenance Assist Agreement for nuclear reactor retubing work.

Ontario Hydro and EPSCA brought a motion to dismiss the complaints.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board allowed the motion and dismissed the complaints, finding that the dispute was fundamentally a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment rather than a representational issue or a violation of bargaining rights under the Act.

A dissenting member would have allowed the complaint to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The applicant union filed multiple certification applications for employees at various Swiss Chalet restaurants.

The respondent employers and intervener unions argued the applications were untimely due to existing collective agreements.

The applicant alleged that the employer had previously provided covert support to the intervener union by hiring undercover operatives to assist in its organizing campaign, thereby invalidating the existing collective agreements under sections 13 and 48 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer did violate section 64 by providing covert support, but because the intervener union was unaware of this support, its independence was not compromised.

Consequently, the existing collective agreements remained valid, and most of the certification applications were dismissed as untimely.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of maintenance electricians employed by the respondent mining company.

The union argued that the electricians constituted a craft unit deemed appropriate under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed extensive evidence of the union's bargaining practices across various industries in Canada and the United States.

The Board found that outside the construction and related industries, the union did not commonly bargain separately and apart for maintenance electricians.

Consequently, the union failed to meet the mandatory criteria of section 6(3) and was not entitled to a separate craft bargaining unit.