Employment and Labour Law

The respondent employer requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider and revoke a certification decision made three years earlier.

The employer claimed it had not received proper notice and had returned the Board's forms unread, asking for an explanation.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration without a hearing, finding that the employer had been properly served, had failed to read the clear instructions on the forms, and was the author of its own misfortune.

The Board held that the employer had not acted with due diligence and had not been denied natural justice.

The applicant alleged that the respondent trade union and its officials violated a prior Board order and the Labour Relations Act by supplying union members to a newly formed non-union contractor to perform struck work during a province-wide strike.

The Board found that while the new contractor was not a 'related employer' under section 1(4), the arrangement whereby union members continued to perform the struck work for a non-union employer violated section 146(2) of the Act.

The Board issued a cease and desist order and directed the union to inform its members that they could not perform the struck work.

The complainants requested a direction under section 91 of the Act regarding a work assignment dispute on a pipeline project.

The respondent unions raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) because the collective agreements required referring such disputes to a mutually selected tribunal.

The Board found that while one collective agreement contained a specific jurisdictional dispute mechanism, the other did not.

Therefore, the collective agreements did not establish a mutual dispute-settlement mechanism that would exclude the Board's jurisdiction.

The preliminary objection was dismissed and the matter was listed for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant employee applied for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent trade union.

The union argued that the employee petition supporting the application was not voluntary, citing the employer's past unfair labour practices and the recent layoff of employees.

The Board found that sufficient time had passed since the employer's prior misconduct to neutralize its effect, and there was no evidence of recent employer interference.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the duty to bargain in good faith under the Labour Relations Act by unlawfully withdrawing an offer to continue COLA payments in order to avoid reaching a collective agreement.

The employer argued that its inexperienced negotiator made a mistake in conveying the company's position during conciliation, and that it promptly corrected the error once discovered.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had made a genuine mistake and did not intend to continue the COLA payments, and that correcting the unaccepted offer did not constitute bad faith bargaining.

The complainant filed a work assignment dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

Several respondents alleged that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) because the parties were bound to refer such disputes to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB).

The Sheet Metal Workers and the intervener argued the IJDB had ceased to function.

The Board issued a decision correcting a previous error in identifying the party who submitted a letter from the NLRB regarding the IJDB's status.

The Board directed the Registrar to list the matter for a hearing to receive further evidence and representations on whether the IJDB is operating and how that affects the Board's jurisdiction.

The applicant, owner and general contractor of a hotel project, sought relief under section 135 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondents engaged in an unlawful strike by refusing to cross a picket line.

The picket line was established by a striking union and sanctioned by the building trades council.

The Board found that while the respondents' refusal to cross the picket line was in accordance with a common understanding based on union solidarity, there was no cessation of work because the sub-contractors had decided not to schedule work during the picketing.

Consequently, the respondents did not engage in a strike within the meaning of the Act, and the application was dismissed.

The employer applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the union failed to commence bargaining within sixty days of giving notice.

The Board found that while there was a delay, it was adequately explained by the union representative's health problems and difficulties in forming a bargaining committee.

The Board concluded that the union had actively pursued its bargaining mandate and dismissed the application.

The union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the employer failed to recognize the grievor as a Union Steward and discharged him without just cause.

The employer argued the grievor was discharged for insubordination and that the union was estopped from appointing him as a steward.

The Board found no insubordination and held the discharge was without just cause, ordering reinstatement with compensation.

However, the Board applied the doctrine of promissory estoppel, finding the union had represented it would not appoint a new employee as a steward, and therefore was estopped from appointing the grievor to that role.

The applicant union applied for certification and challenged the status of the intervener union.

The intervener relied on a short-form agreement signed with the respondent employer before any employees were hired for a construction project.

The applicant argued this constituted improper employer support under the Labour Relations Act, rendering the agreement invalid.

The Board held that in the construction industry, signing a collective agreement to secure union members from a hiring hall before they commence work does not constitute improper employer support.

The Board found the agreement was a valid collective agreement, giving the intervener status, and directed the matter to continue.

The applicant union applied under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging the respondents failed to comply with a collective agreement.

The union served subpoenas on two witnesses, who failed to appear at two scheduled hearings.

The union requested a bench warrant to ensure their attendance.

The Board, acting under section 103(2)(a) of the Act, found it had the authority to enforce the attendance of witnesses in the same manner as a court of record in civil cases.

Satisfied that the witnesses were properly served and their evidence was material, the Board issued a warrant for their arrest to bring them before the Board.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Ethyl Canada, Inc. and F.I.R.M., a mechanical contractor, constituted a single employer.

The union alleged that Ethyl was using F.I.R.M. to erode the bargaining unit's work jurisdiction over supplementary maintenance.

The Board found that while the two entities had a close relationship, F.I.R.M. was not a mere instrumentality of Ethyl, and Ethyl had a long-standing practice of subcontracting such work.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration, noting the potential for jurisdictional disputes and the union's delay in bringing the application.

The complainant, a spare power house operator, alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to assist him in obtaining a permanent power house operator position.

The complainant lacked the newly established qualifications for the position and had a history of poor judgment and safety violations in his spare role.

The Board found that the union was aware of these issues and that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case that the union's decision not to support his grievance was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicants sought relief under sections 135 and 89 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondents entered into an unlawful arrangement during a lawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry.

Members of the respondent union employed by Kamtar went on strike but later returned to perform the same work for Quinard under a 'maintenance agreement'.

The Board found that the work, which involved replacing large pieces of equipment and installing new piping, constituted construction work in the ICI sector, not maintenance work.

Consequently, the arrangement between Quinard and the union violated section 146(2) of the Act.

The Board directed the respondents to cease applying the maintenance agreement and to cease supplying and employing union members on the project.

The employers requested the Minister of Labour to appoint a conciliation officer, naming Local 432 as the trade union.

The union objected, asserting that the Ontario Projectionists' Association had been designated as its agent for collective bargaining and had acquired the rights of Local 432.

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

The Board found that the Association is not a trade union at common law or under the Labour Relations Act, but rather an uncertified council of trade unions.

As such, it can only act as an agent for Local 432, which retains the formal bargaining rights.

The Board concluded that the Minister has the authority to appoint a conciliation officer naming Local 432.

The Board determined the appropriate measure and period of entitlement for monetary losses arising from the respondent's bad faith bargaining.

The Board held that the period of entitlement ran from April 1, 1980, to December 3, 1980.

For the period between April 1 and June 17, 1980, damages were limited to the net monetary claim, reflecting the difference between what employees would have received had they continued to work and the 9% increase that would have resulted from good faith bargaining.

From June 18 to December 3, 1980, striking employees were entitled to their gross monetary claim.

The Board also ruled that grievors were obligated to mitigate their losses after February 13, 1981.

The applicants, employees of Northland Glass and Metal Limited, applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued that the application was instigated by the employer because the lead applicant had asked the employer for the name of a lawyer to assist with the decertification.

The Board found that this single inquiry, standing alone, was insufficient to indicate management influence, especially since the employees had previously considered decertification.

The Board concluded the statement of desire was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the employer involvement sufficient to dismiss the application.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act that a sale of a business occurred between Universal Sections Limited and U S L Industries Inc. Universal had gone into receivership and its physical assets were sold by tender to Danbury Sales, which subsequently sold them to U S L Industries Inc. The Board found that Danbury purchased only a bundle of discrete assets and did not acquire the business as a going concern.

Consequently, there was no sale of a business from Universal to Danbury, and thus no sale to U S L Industries Inc. The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging the respondent company failed to remit various benefit payments.

The union sought an order for substitutional service of a subpoena on the respondent's principal, who was evading service.

The Board held that it lacks the statutory authority to order substitutional service of a subpoena or to issue a direction to appear carrying penal consequences without personal service.

The Board outlined the applicant's options to either seek an adjournment to effect personal service or proceed on the merits with available evidence.

The applicant union filed a complaint regarding a work assignment dispute over the installation of boiler systems at a generating station.

The respondent employer and union argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) of the Labour Relations Act because the parties' collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB).

The applicant contended the IJDB was no longer functioning.

The Board found that the IJDB procedures were still operative and that the parties were bound by them.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint and terminated the proceedings.