25 total
Union certified after single ballot cast in representation vote; employer's allegations of misrepresentation and undue influence dismissed.
The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry and a representation vote was held.
Only one of the two eligible employees voted, casting a ballot in favour of the union.
The responding employer sought to dismiss the application under s. 11(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the union misrepresented the voting time to the non-voting employee and exerted undue influence on the voting employee.
The Board found that the union's misrepresentation regarding the voting time was innocent and did not cause the employee to miss the vote.
The Board also found that the union's statements did not constitute threats or undue pressure.
Finally, the Board rejected the employer's argument that a vote with only one ballot cast is invalid, holding that the single ballot is determinative.
The union was certified.
Extensive blast furnace refit deemed construction work, not maintenance, falling under the ICI provincial agreement.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that work performed by the responding party on a blast furnace was construction work and should have been performed under the ICI provincial agreement.
The responding party and intervenors argued the work was maintenance and properly performed under the General President's Maintenance Agreement.
The Board reviewed the scope of work, which involved extensive replacements and redesigns to bring a decommissioned furnace back into service.
The Board concluded that the totality of the work constituted repair and alteration, making it construction work subject to the ICI agreement.
The matter of damages was remitted to the parties.
Board finds majority of disputed electrical work at refinery was construction, not maintenance, breaching collective agreement.
The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the responding party employer breached the provincial collective agreement by applying a maintenance agreement to various electrical work projects at a refinery.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board was asked to determine whether eight specific items of work were 'construction' or 'maintenance'.
The Board declined to defer to a prior determination by the General Presidents' Maintenance Committee.
Applying the Master Insulators test, the Board analyzed the context and purpose of each project.
It concluded that seven of the eight items involved additions or enhancements to the systems and were therefore 'construction' work, while one item was 'maintenance'.
The employer was found to have breached the collective agreement with respect to the construction work.
G.P.C. granted discretionary standing to intervene in construction grievance regarding maintenance versus construction work; Dofasco denied standing.
The applicant trade union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the employer failed to pay proper wage rates under the provincial ICI agreement for work performed at a Dofasco project.
The employer asserted the work was maintenance covered by a project agreement.
The General Presidents' Maintenance Committee for Canada (G.P.C.) and Dofasco sought standing to intervene.
The Board held that neither had standing as of right, as they were not bound by the ICI agreement.
However, the Board exercised its discretion to grant standing to the G.P.C. given its role in administering maintenance agreements and the potential impact on the collective bargaining system.
Dofasco was denied standing.
Ontario labour law applies to professional baseball umpires working in Toronto; lock-out declared unlawful.
The Association of Major League Umpires filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the American and National Leagues and the Toronto Blue Jays, challenging a lock-out and the use of replacement umpires at games in Toronto.
The Leagues argued that their collective bargaining relationship was governed by American law and that Ontario law did not apply.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the Ontario Labour Relations Act applies to the umpires when they work in Toronto.
The Board declared that the lock-out and the use of replacement umpires in Ontario were unlawful because the parties had not completed the compulsory conciliation process required by the Act.
