B. Pollock

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that an employee was terminated for union activity.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification.

The Board found that the petition did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes because it was circulated on company time and premises with the tacit support of management.

The Board also found that the employer's termination of a union supporter, ostensibly for asking another employee to steal files, was tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board certified the union and ordered the employee reinstated with full compensation.

The union filed grievances under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent employer breached the collective agreement by subcontracting concrete forming work to employers who used members of the Labourers' union rather than the Carpenters' union.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute and that the Board should defer to the section 91 jurisdictional dispute mechanism.

The Board adjourned the section 124 proceedings for 21 days to allow the respondent to file a jurisdictional dispute, noting that the panel seized with the jurisdictional dispute would be the more appropriate forum to resolve all aspects of the case.