Andrea Bowker

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the responding employer's assignment of removing and replacing loose concrete blocks over boilers at a nuclear power plant to the responding union (Boilermakers).

The applicant claimed the work should have been assigned to its members, while an intervenor union argued for a composite crew.

After reviewing the employer's past practice evidence, the Board declined to change the assignment and confirmed the work was properly assigned to the Boilermakers.

The applicant appealed an order made by an Occupational Health and Safety Inspector which required workers installing hangers and brackets on a casino construction project to hold a certificate of qualification as an Electrician Branch 1.

The order had resulted in the applicant's members being removed from the job and replaced by electricians.

On the fourth day of the hearing, the parties reached a resolution.

Pursuant to their memorandum of agreement, the Board rescinded the Inspector's order and noted the Ministry of Labour's policies regarding jurisdictional disputes and compulsory trades.

The applicants requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow the Board to entertain a request for reconsideration of a prior decision that denied certain union locals standing to intervene.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding that no formal request for reconsideration had actually been filed, no extension of time had been granted, and any such request made at this late stage of the proceedings would be untimely.

The Board directed that the hearing on the merits proceed.

The applicant union filed an application regarding an alleged unlawful strike or lock-out concerning the assignment of scaffolding work at a job site.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement preserving the assignment of work to the applicant's members unless overturned in a section 99 proceeding.

The Board incorporated the settlement as its own order and adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant Carpenters union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work by Ecodyne Limited involving the renovation of a cooling tower, specifically the tear out and scrapping of portions of the frame.

The Labourers union claimed the work was demolition and fell under their jurisdiction based on area practice.

The Board found that the work was an upgrading job in the ICI sector, not demolition, and that employer practice, economy, and efficiency supported the assignment to the Carpenters.

The Board upheld the assignment to the Carpenters.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board concerning unpaid remittances.

The responding party failed to attend the hearing.

The Board found that the responding party's principal acknowledged arrears but failed to provide required remittance forms.

The Board ordered the principal to prepare and submit the forms, meet with a Labour Relations Officer, and attend a further hearing with all relevant payroll records.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding unpaid remittances and unsubmitted employer report forms.

The responding party failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board found that the responding party's principal acknowledged arrears and had submitted cheques, but failed to provide the required remittance forms, preventing the union from attributing contributions to members.

The Board ordered the responding party to prepare and submit the required forms, meet with a Labour Relations Officer to review outstanding monies, and attend a subsequent hearing with all relevant payroll records.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by assigning certain engraving machine work to the intervenor union and by holding a mark-up meeting.

The employer and intervenor raised preliminary objections, arguing the grievance was untimely, was actually a jurisdictional dispute, and should be deferred to the Canadian Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes.

The Board struck out the portion of the grievance regarding the mark-up meeting as untimely, but found the work assignment portion was an ongoing grievance.

The Board concluded the substance of the grievance was a jurisdictional dispute and adjourned the application sine die to allow the matter to be resolved by the Plan, as a reference had already been made to it.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought an application alleging that union leaders and organizations breached section 83 of the Labour Relations Act by encouraging protesters to picket TTC sites during the 'Days of Protest', which would cause TTC employees to engage in an unlawful strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that verbal statements constitute 'acts' under section 83 and that the provision's restriction on Charter rights of expression and assembly is demonstrably justified.

The Board concluded that two union leaders breached the Act and issued cease and desist orders restricting picketing at TTC access points to ensure employees could work, while dismissing the application against a third leader and the organizations.

A dissenting member argued that section 83 should not apply to political speech and that the restrictions were not justified under the Charter.

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging the school board contravened the strike replacement provisions of the Labour Relations Act by planning to use regular teachers to perform the work of occasional teachers during a threatened strike.

The strike was averted when a collective agreement was reached.

The school board argued the complaint was moot and requested the Board decline to inquire into it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, exercising its discretion under section 91 of the Act to refuse to render an advisory opinion on a hypothetical scenario where the concrete dispute had disappeared.