B. W. Binning

The applicant union referred grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, concerning the application of the Operating Engineers' Provincial Agreement to the responding parties' crane and equipment rental businesses.

On the second day of the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Board issued a consent declaration confirming that the Provincial Agreement requires the responding parties to observe Schedule 'A' throughout Ontario, including Lambton County, but acknowledging that an estoppel permits the application of Schedule 'F' in Lambton County until the expiry of the current agreement.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking a determination that there was an established local area work practice of its members performing the cutting and placing of lagging within its geographic jurisdiction.

The Board acted as the committee provided for under the provincial agreement to determine the work practice.

After reviewing the evidence of lagging work on industrial and commercial construction sites, the Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that contractors bound to the agreement had recognized the union's claim to the work.

The application was dismissed.

The union filed a complaint alleging the university violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate the union's 9-point programme regarding the divestment of the Royal Conservatory of Music, refusing to disclose related information, and refusing to continue negotiations pending the outcome of the complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the university's refusal to discuss the 9-point programme and its refusal to continue negotiations pending the complaint violated the duty to bargain in good faith.

However, the Board found no violation regarding the refusal to disclose information or alleged delay.

The Board directed the university to bargain in good faith and table a full package of proposals.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer improperly subcontracted concrete forming work.

The respondent and intervening unions requested a preliminary determination under section 150 of the Labour Relations Act as to whether the work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The Board granted the request, finding it appropriate to determine the sector issue before hearing the merits of the grievance, given the potential illegality of the collective agreement if it purported to cover ICI work.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers.

Following a previous Board decision determining the applicant was an affiliated bargaining agent, the applicant requested to amend its proposed bargaining unit to exclude the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector under section 144(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and an intervener union opposed the amendment, arguing the applicant could not seek certification outside the ICI sector if it was barred within it.

The Board held that section 144(3) does not restrict the applicant from seeking a non-ICI unit, finding the amended unit appropriate.

The Board also declined the intervener's request to extend the terminal date, finding no prejudice or necessity, and authorized a Board Officer to inquire into the employee lists.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of glaziers and glaziers' apprentices in the employ of the respondent.

The respondent argued that the employees in question were not certified journeymen or registered apprentices under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act, and therefore should not be included in the bargaining unit, relying on the Board's previous decision in Irvcon.

The Board noted a potential exception under O. Reg. 36 and directed the matter to be listed for a continuation of hearing to hear evidence and representations on whether the Director of Apprenticeship considers the trade of glazier to be one requiring compliance with the Act.

The union and the company both referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union alleged that the company violated a letter of intent incorporated into the collective agreement by subcontracting the fabrication of vessels to a non-union shop without prior consultation or justification.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the company ignored the spirit of the letter of intent, the letter only suggested, rather than mandated, that fabrication work be placed in union shops or discussed with the union if placed elsewhere.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement regarding emergency help, the hiring of first-year apprentices, and the lay-off of a job steward.

The Board dismissed the grievances relating to the emergency help and apprentices, finding that the union's telegram did not effectively end the emergency as it did not supply replacement workers, and that the employer was entitled to hire new first-year apprentices under the agreement.

However, the Board allowed the grievance regarding the job steward, finding that the employer violated the agreement by terminating the steward while there were still more than six men on the overall job site.

One Board member dissented on the dismissal of the first two issues.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer violated the subcontracting provision of their provincial collective agreement by subcontracting landscaping work to a non-union employer.

The parties submitted an agreed statement of facts to determine whether horticulture work was a lawful subject for bargaining and whether its subcontracting could be regulated by the agreement.

The Board found that the landscaping work fell within the definition of the construction industry and that the horticulture exception in the Act did not exclude such work per se.

The Board concluded that horticulture work is a lawful subject for bargaining and its subcontracting may be lawfully regulated by the collective agreement.

The complainant, an owner-operator of a crane, alleged that the respondent union breached the Labour Relations Act by negotiating a subcontracting clause that required owner-operators to have an agreement with the union, and then refusing to sign such an agreement with him.

This refusal effectively prevented him from working on unionized construction sites.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that owner-operators were not employees within the meaning of the provincial collective agreement, and therefore the union owed them no duty of fair representation under section 60 or 136(1).

The Board also found no violation of section 60a regarding hiring hall referrals, nor any unlawful intimidation or coercion under section 61.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the designation of employee and employer bargaining agencies in the construction industry, following the affiliation of the Lathers' International Union with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

The Board found that the previous separate designations for the Lathers and their corresponding employers were no longer effective in either a legal or industrial relations sense.

The Board concluded that separate designations for acoustic and drywall workers were not appropriate, and recommended that all affected parties be included within a single set of comprehensive designations to reflect the consolidation of bargaining rights and avoid jurisdictional disputes.