B. W. Adams

The applicant, who operated an insulation business with his wife, applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union brought a non-suit motion, arguing the applicant was a principal of the company and that the application was not voluntary.

The Board granted the non-suit motion and dismissed the application, finding that even if the applicant were considered an employee, the decision to bring the application was made jointly with his wife, who managed the business.

Therefore, the application did not represent a voluntary expression of employee wishes free from management influence.

In an application for a declaration terminating bargaining rights, the union sought production of various employer documents via a summons duces tecum.

The Board initially denied the broad request as a fishing expedition.

Subsequently, the union narrowed its request.

The Board directed the employer to produce time cards for specific dates to address allegations of management involvement in the petition's circulation, while other document requests were resolved by agreement.

The applicant union brought an application alleging a sale of business from Ameri-Cana Motel Limited to a numbered company, seeking to bind the numbered company to the provincial collective agreement.

The respondents argued the union had abandoned its bargaining rights, which were originally obtained by certification in 1972.

The Board found that the union failed to take reasonable steps to monitor the employer's construction activities between 1973 and 1977, despite the employer operating from a fixed location where ongoing construction was visible.

Consequently, the Board concluded the union had abandoned its bargaining rights prior to the advent of province-wide bargaining in 1978, and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a working foreman, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights and circulated a petition signed by employees.

The Board first clarified a previous ruling, confirming that an agreement attempting to amend the bargaining unit in the provincial agreement is null and void under section 146(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

On the merits of the petition, the Board found that although the applicant was an employee in the bargaining unit and not excluded by section 1(3)(b), he was the sole representative of the employer on the job site for most of the time.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the employees would have perceived the applicant as a representative of the employer, rendering the petition involuntary.

The application for termination was dismissed.

A dissenting board member would have accepted the petition and directed a vote.

The union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether certain individuals working for the respondent exercised managerial functions and were thus excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the fixer-foremen did not exercise managerial responsibilities, as their direction of other employees was purely incidental to their primary concern of maintaining machines.

However, the Board concluded that the quality control supervisor did exercise managerial functions, noting her historical exclusion from the unit and her involvement in actions that could adversely impact fellow employees.

The complainants sought a cease and desist order and damages, alleging the respondents engaged in unlawful picketing and strikes to prevent the employer from operating with members of the Christian Labour Association of Canada.

The respondents moved to strike the claims, arguing the alleged unlawful conduct had ceased months prior.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding no overriding labour-relations purpose to decline hearing the application or limiting the potential remedies before hearing the evidence.

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.

The complainant union alleged that the employer dismissed a probationary employee because of her activities as a union steward, contrary to The Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued the Board should defer to grievance arbitration under the collective agreement.

The Board refused to defer, noting the employee's probationary status might preclude arbitration and the dispute arose under a first collective agreement.

On the merits, the Board found the employer failed to prove the dismissal was untainted by anti-union animus, given the employee's excellent performance and the timing of her dismissal immediately following her union activities.

The Board ordered reinstatement with full compensation and directed the employer to post a notice.