Brian P. Smeenk

The complainant employer association alleged that the respondent union and employee bargaining agency violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing to bargain and execute an appendix to the provincial collective agreement.

The union argued that signing the appendix would violate its international constitution regarding the use of vehicles and travel cards.

The Board held that a union cannot contract out of the Labour Relations Act through its constitution.

Finding a continued breach of the duty to bargain in good faith, the Board ordered the employee bargaining agency to execute the appendix.

The union applied for certification to represent employees of a child and family services agency.

The parties disputed the inclusion of two classifications in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that 'househeads' exercised managerial functions, including effective recommendation on hiring, discipline, and performance evaluation, and excluded them due to a conflict of interest.

However, the Board found that 'child care teachers' shared a community of interest with the other child care workers, noting similarities in conditions of employment and functional interdependence, and included them in the bargaining unit.

The applicants sought a declaration under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act that a transfer of an undertaking had occurred from the Crown to the municipality.

The Crown had conveyed the administration of a part of its Family Benefits Act program to the municipality, and six former Crown employees accepted employment there.

The respondent union argued no transfer occurred because the Crown lacked statutory authority to have the work performed by non-Crown employees.

The Board held that the legal authority of the Crown to effect a transfer is not determinative of whether a transfer occurred under the Act.

Finding that a transfer and intermingling of employees had occurred, the Board declared that the municipality was no longer bound by the respondent union's collective agreement and that the applicant union was the bargaining agent for all employees in the unit.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing his request to be represented by his own counsel at an arbitration hearing, with the costs to be paid by the union.

The Board found no evidence of ill will, bad faith, or discrimination by the union's executive board or membership in their handling of the grievance.

The union had followed its normal procedures and had appointed experienced labour counsel to represent the complainant.

The Board dismissed the complaint, noting that allowing a complainant to unilaterally select counsel at the union's expense would do violence to the legislative scheme establishing the union as the exclusive bargaining agent.

The applicant employer sought to have the Board redefine several existing bargaining units into a single unit under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act following an administrative reorganization of its wholesale operations.

The employer also requested relief under section 91 to reconcile conflicting collective agreements.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the work of the different operations remained functionally separate and identifiable, meaning no intermingling had occurred to trigger section 63(6).

The Board concluded that the dispute over the application of collective agreements and seniority rights should proceed to arbitration.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters employed by the respondents in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector, as well as all employees in all other sectors in Board Area 16.

The interveners argued that under the Board's displacement policy, the applicant must seek to represent all employees in the existing concrete forming bargaining unit.

The Board held that the requirements of section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act take precedence over the displacement policy, allowing the applicant to carve out its traditional craft.

However, the Board found that a unit combining carpenters in the ICI sector with all trades in other sectors was inappropriate, as it would require complex sectoral determinations.

The Board determined the appropriate unit under section 144(1) to be carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in both the ICI sector and all other sectors in Board Area 16, while allowing the application to be treated as simultaneously seeking a separate unit for other trades under section 144(3).

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the exclusive bargaining agent for electronic testing technicians employed by the respondent.

The applicant argued that the technicians constituted a craft unit under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, an appropriate unit under section 6(1).

The Board found that the applicant failed to establish a history of commonly bargaining separately and apart for the craft, and thus the unit was not deemed appropriate under section 6(3).

However, finding an arguable issue under section 6(1), the Board authorized a Board Officer to inquire into the duties of certain supervisors and the community of interest between the technicians and other employees.

The applicant trade unions referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer violated provincial collective agreements.

The employer argued it was not bound by any collective agreement, asserting that a 'working agreement' signed in 1960 with the Council was invalid because the Council was not a certified council of trade unions and the employer had no employees represented by the unions at the time of signing.

The Board held that the working agreement constituted a valid voluntary recognition agreement entered into by the Council as an agent for its affiliated trade unions.

Applying the Nicholls-Radtke principle, the Board found that signing the agreement on the understanding that the unions would supply competent workmen did not constitute unlawful employer support.

The Board directed the matter to be listed for continuation of hearing on the merits.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The respondent employer challenged the union's membership evidence, alleging that a union organizer engaged in improper conduct by offering to buy an employee's car, find a job for her boyfriend, and accepting a conditional payment of the membership fee.

The Board dismissed the employer's charges, finding that the organizer's conduct did not cross the bounds of acceptable salesmanship into coercion or fundamental misrepresentation, and that the conditional payment was not improper.

The Board consolidated the certification application with a related unfair labour practice complaint to hear evidence regarding a statement in opposition filed by objecting employees.

The applicant, a designated employer bargaining agency, filed a complaint alleging that the respondent companies and trade unions violated the Labour Relations Act by continuing to work and supply employees during a lawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The respondents argued that pneumatic control work was governed by a separate national agreement and fell outside the provincial agreement.

The Board found that the respondent companies perform pneumatic control installation work within the ICI sector, which is a specialization of the plumbing and pipe fitting trade.

The Board declared the national agreement null and void in the ICI sector, but delayed the effect of the declaration until the expiration of the current provincial agreement to allow the parties to integrate the work.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a part-time office and clerical bargaining unit at the respondent university.

The respondent argued for a tag-end or standard office, clerical, and technical unit.

The Board found that the proposed unit, which mirrored the long-established full-time bargaining structure, was appropriate.

The Board excluded 23 students working in the Kinetic Centre, finding they had a stronger affinity with technical employees.

Due to a significant increase in the number of part-time employees shortly after the application date, the Board ordered a representation vote rather than automatic certification.

The applicant union sought certification, and a dispute arose regarding the composition of the bargaining unit.

The Board determined that a First Cook exercised managerial functions and was excluded, while a Housekeeper with minor supervisory duties was included.

The Board also found that a maintenance worker who received a $5,000 advance on wages to buy a truck upon turning 65 remained an employee at the time of the application.

The Board directed that the representation vote ballots be counted.

The applicant union council sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against M. J. Guthrie Construction Limited and Rosedale Construction, and referred a grievance under section 124.

The Board found that the two companies were under common control and direction.

Although they had operated side-by-side for over twenty years, the recent phasing out of the unionized company and the performance of its work by the non-unionized company threatened to erode existing bargaining rights.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration to protect these rights.

However, the Board dismissed the section 124 grievance, finding that the historical working agreement relied upon was null and void in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector due to the provincial bargaining requirements of section 146 of the Act.

The complainant employer sought an interim order and a cease and desist order regarding a work assignment dispute between two unions over the off-loading of piping equipment.

The employer had assigned the work to the U.A. Local 463 after the Ironworkers Local 721 allegedly refused to perform work on the site.

The Ironworkers requested the Board to change the assignment.

The Board applied its established jurisprudence that an employer's assignment will be continued unless patently wrong.

Finding the assignment was made after representations from both unions, the Board directed the employer to continue assigning the work to U.A. Local 463 pending a final resolution.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union for two bargaining units of the intervener employer.

The Board dismissed the application regarding the non-ICI sector as untimely.

For the ICI sector, the union argued the relevant bargaining unit for termination was the province-wide unit under the provincial agreement, meaning the applicants lacked the required 45% support.

The Board held that the correct bargaining unit for termination purposes is the employer-specific unit, not the province-wide unit.

Finding that the applicants had the requisite support within the employer's ICI unit, the Board directed a representation vote.

The applicant employer bargaining agency alleged that during a province-wide strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, the respondent affiliated bargaining agents continued to supply union members to certain contractors.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the supply of men during a province-wide strike constituted an unlawful arrangement contrary to section 146(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also held that trade unions have an ongoing obligation under section 148(1) to take reasonable steps to ensure that a strike is called and authorized uniformly, and that the respondents breached this duty by permitting members to work.

Cease and desist orders were issued.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the Carpenters' provincial agreement by failing to hire local union members or obtain a referral slip for carpentry work performed on a construction project.

The work was performed entirely by the president of the respondent company.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the president was a managerial person and not an 'employee' within the meaning of the collective agreement's transfer and hiring provisions.

As such, he was not prohibited from performing the work or required to obtain a referral slip.