Carl Peterson

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by subcontracting work to a non-union entity.

The responding employer and the intervenor union brought a motion to adjourn the grievance pending the determination of a jurisdictional dispute over the work assignment.

The Board granted the motion, finding that its longstanding jurisprudence of deferring subcontracting grievances to jurisdictional disputes was not altered by recent case law, and adjourned the grievance pending the filing of a jurisdictional dispute application.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The parties disputed whether two carpenters working on the site were employees of the responding party general contractor or independent subcontractors.

The Board applied the dependent contractor test, examining the economic and business relationship.

The Board found that the individuals had negotiated a fixed-price contract, had the opportunity for profit or loss, and were not economically dependent on the general contractor in a manner analogous to employees.

As the individuals were independent contractors, there were insufficient employees in the proposed bargaining unit on the date of application, and the certification application was dismissed.

The applicant appealed an order made by an Occupational Health and Safety Inspector which required workers installing hangers and brackets on a casino construction project to hold a certificate of qualification as an Electrician Branch 1.

The order had resulted in the applicant's members being removed from the job and replaced by electricians.

On the fourth day of the hearing, the parties reached a resolution.

Pursuant to their memorandum of agreement, the Board rescinded the Inspector's order and noted the Ministry of Labour's policies regarding jurisdictional disputes and compulsory trades.

The applicant Carpenters union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work by Ecodyne Limited involving the renovation of a cooling tower, specifically the tear out and scrapping of portions of the frame.

The Labourers union claimed the work was demolition and fell under their jurisdiction based on area practice.

The Board found that the work was an upgrading job in the ICI sector, not demolition, and that employer practice, economy, and efficiency supported the assignment to the Carpenters.

The Board upheld the assignment to the Carpenters.

The appellant appealed an inspector's order directing it to provide a Notice of Project as a constructor under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Canadian Institute of Public and Private Real Estate Companies (CIPPREC) brought a motion to intervene in the appeal.

The Board granted the motion, finding that CIPPREC demonstrated a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceedings, as the determination of whether the appellant was a constructor would have wide implications for the real estate development and construction industries.

The applicant trade union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, to treat Royal Taxi and various Associates as a single employer.

The union had recently certified only the brokerage (Royal Taxi) and subsequently negotiated a collective agreement with it.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to make the declaration, finding that the union had strategically chosen to certify only the brokerage and that adding the Associates now would unfairly disrupt the newly negotiated collective agreement, which did not address Associate-specific issues.

The applicant, Carpenters Local 18, filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the employer's assignment of certain formwork to a composite crew of carpenters and labourers.

The responding parties, Rili Construction Weston Ltd. and Labourers Local 837, defended the assignment.

The Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors, noting that members of both unions had the skill and ability to perform the work, and that the employer's practice and area practice supported the use of a composite crew in the ICI sector.

The Board concluded that the employer's assignment was reasonable and made in good faith, and dismissed the complaint.

The employer, Ecodyne Limited, filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of tending and clean-up work on a cooling tower erection project in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The employer had assigned the work to members of the Carpenters' union, but the Labourers' union claimed the work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors, finding that while economy and efficiency favoured the employer's preference for the Carpenters, the core work jurisdiction in the collective agreement and the local area practice favoured the Labourers.

The Board declared that the work should have been assigned to the Labourers.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that economy and efficiency should prevail.

The applicant employers' organization filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding trade unions bargained in bad faith by pressing to impasse a demand that the applicant's members contribute to an industry fund operated by a rival employers' organization.

The Board found that the trade unions' insistence on this provision as a condition to end a strike interfered with the administration of the applicant and provided improper support to the rival organization, contrary to section 71 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board concluded that pressing this demand to impasse constituted a failure to bargain in good faith under section 17.

The applicant union filed a complaint regarding a work assignment dispute.

The responding union raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the matter had already been decided by an arbitrator under the Plan for Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, to which all parties were bound.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board agreed, finding that the applicant was bound by the Plan's decision through its collective agreement.

Applying the doctrine of issue estoppel, the Board exercised its discretion under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to decline to inquire further into the complaint, emphasizing the policy of deferring to private dispute resolution mechanisms agreed to by the parties.

The applicant employers' association applied for accreditation to represent employers engaged in low-rise concrete forming in the residential sector.

The applicant and the responding union agreed on the bargaining unit description.

Intervenor employer associations argued the unit should be broader, encompassing all employers bound by various residential sector collective agreements, to reflect contemporaneous bargaining practices.

The Board found that the proposed unit reflected the existing, stable bargaining structure and was viable for collective bargaining.

The Board determined the proposed unit was appropriate and directed notice to employers.

The employer applied to combine the 'parts' and 'manufacturing' bargaining units following a corporate reorganization.

The parties agreed on a single collective agreement but could not resolve how to merge the seniority lists.

The employer proposed 'dovetailing' based on date of hire, while the union advanced conflicting positions from the two former units.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under subsection 7(5) of the Labour Relations Act to resolve the impasse, adopting the employer's dovetailing proposal as the most equitable resolution that respects the employees' accumulated seniority.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a deemed sale of a business occurred under section 64.2 of the Labour Relations Act when the Board of Governors of Exhibition Place leased a building to Medieval Times.

Medieval Times subsequently contracted out cleaning services to a non-unionized company, whereas the union had previously cleaned the building for the Board of Governors.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the transaction constituted a deemed sale of a business, finding that the 'premises' encompassed the entirety of Exhibition Place, that the employer had ceased in part to provide services at those premises, and that substantially similar services were subsequently provided under the direction of another employer.

Medieval Times was declared bound by the union's notice to bargain.

The Board of Governors of Exhibition Place brought a jurisdictional dispute complaint concerning the assignment of work for erecting and dismantling flats and risers for Bridal Shows at the Queen Elizabeth Exhibition Hall.

The work was performed by Elite Show Services for Klanside Inc., who had licensed the hall.

The dispute was between I.A.T.S.E. Local 58 and Labourers Local 506.

The Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors and found that the collective agreement and inherent jurisdictional claim of I.A.T.S.E. Local 58 outweighed the employer practice and economy/efficiency factors favouring Labourers Local 506.

The Board declared the work properly within the jurisdiction of I.A.T.S.E. Local 58 and directed that future assignments for Bridal Shows be made to its members.

The applicant union sought an interim order declaring it the successor union and exclusive bargaining agent for employees in over 200 pending successor rights applications.

The applications arose from a massive inter-union dispute following the purported merger of various Ontario locals of the RWDSU with the Steelworkers, which was contested by the RWDSU International and the UFCW.

The dispute caused widespread confusion and collective bargaining paralysis, prompting employers and the Minister of Labour to seek clarification on which union to deal with.

The Board granted the interim order, declaring the Steelworkers as the interim exclusive bargaining agent to preserve orderly labour relations and allow the collective bargaining process to function until the main applications are resolved.

The applicant unions filed grievances alleging that the responding party violated the Mainline Pipeline Agreement by failing to apply it to the manufacture and supply of concrete from a permanent batching plant in Cochrane.

The concrete was supplied to a contractor manufacturing concrete weights for a pipeline project.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the manufacture and supply of concrete from a permanent facility is not construction work covered by the Pipeline Agreement, distinguishing it from portable batching plants used on-site.

One Board Member dissented in part regarding the Teamsters' agreement.

The applicant union filed applications for certification to represent taxi drivers operating under the banners of various taxicab brokers in Metropolitan Toronto.

The central issue was whether the drivers were 'dependent contractors' under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, or independent contractors.

The Board examined the economic relationship between the drivers and the brokers, noting that the drivers derived a substantial portion of their income from dispatched fares and corporate account chits provided by the brokers.

The Board also found that the brokers exercised significant control over the drivers through rules, policies, and the threat of suspension from the dispatch system.

The Board concluded that the drivers were in a position of economic dependence and under an obligation to perform duties for the brokers, more closely resembling the relationship of an employee than that of an independent contractor.

The drivers were therefore found to be dependent contractors.

The applicant union sought certification to represent limousine drivers, displacing the incumbent Teamsters union.

The respondent employers argued the applicant was not a trade union and was employer-dominated.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the applicant met the definition of a trade union, an employer (a co-operative corporation formed by the drivers' association to compete in the limousine business) had participated in its formation and administration.

Consequently, section 13 of the Labour Relations Act barred the Board from certifying the applicant, and the applications were dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act concerning a work assignment dispute.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely under the collective agreement.

The Board found that the grievance was untimely, as it was filed more than 60 days after the disputed work was completed.

However, the Board exercised its discretion under section 44(6) of the Act to extend the time limits, finding that the delay was caused by a reasonable mistake regarding the proper grieving party, the employer was aware of the ongoing dispute, and resolving the grievance would benefit the parties' relationship.

The applicant employers' organization sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for certain employers in the residential sector of the elevator construction industry.

The Board had to determine whether several employers should be included on the Schedule E list of employers, which required analyzing whether their work constituted 'construction' (repair) or 'maintenance'.

The Board found that the work of four challenged employers constituted construction work, bringing the total number of employers on the list to eleven.

Because the applicant only filed representation evidence for five of those eleven employers, the application for accreditation was dismissed pursuant to section 127(2) of the Labour Relations Act.