David Cowling

The applicants filed two applications to terminate bargaining rights (ICI and non-ICI) held by the responding unions.

In the ICI application, the issue was whether the sole employee at work on the application date was performing work in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector or the heavy engineering sector.

The Board determined that the construction of a pedestrian tunnel fell within the heavy engineering sector, focusing on the initial construction of the project rather than the specific repair work performed on the application date.

Consequently, no one was at work in the ICI sector on the application date.

In the non-ICI application, the Board found that the other applicant was at work performing bargaining unit work on the application date, and following a ballot count, declared that the responding parties no longer represented the employees in the non-ICI bargaining unit.

The responding party, Lardale Construction Inc., requested reconsideration of the Board's previous decision to recuse itself from hearing the matter.

The Board accepted that the parties were not given an adequate opportunity to make submissions on the recusal issue.

Consequently, the Board rescinded its recusal decision and directed the parties to file submissions on whether the panel should recuse itself and refer the matters to a different panel.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was held, after which the parties agreed to adjourn the matter.

At the subsequent hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application on the basis that it was untimely.

The Board directed the destruction of the ballots and ordered the responding party to post the decision in the workplace.

The applicant union brought an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding party employer violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by terminating the employment of a striking employee.

The employee had thrown altered fireworks onto the employer's property during a lawful strike, causing a police bomb squad response and a highway closure.

The Board found no evidence of anti-union animus to support a violation of sections 72 or 76.

Applying the non-motive test for section 70, the Board concluded that the termination did not interfere with any protected union activity, as the employer's decision was based solely on the employee's dangerous conduct.

The application was dismissed.

In two applications for the termination of bargaining rights in the construction industry, a dispute arose regarding voter eligibility.

The applicants argued that the responding union was estopped from challenging a voter's inclusion on the list based on the sector of the construction industry, as this issue was not raised during the pre-hearing meeting or in post-vote submissions.

The Board held that the union's broad challenge that the voter was not performing bargaining unit work encompassed a sector challenge.

The Board permitted the union to proceed with its challenge based on sector and directed the filing of submissions.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

During the proceedings, the panel assisted the parties in reaching Minutes of Settlement regarding the production and copying of documents, which required the applicant to pay $1,000 to each responding party by a specified date.

The applicant defaulted on the payment deadline, prompting the responding parties to seek dismissal of the application.

Because the panel members had been involved in mediating the settlement, they expressed concern about the impact of the dispute on the mediation process and decided to recuse themselves.

The matter was adjourned and referred to the Registrar for assignment to a new panel to determine the consequences of the breach.

The applicant union filed applications alleging that the responding parties were related employers or that a sale of a business had occurred between them, and that they had violated the Labour Relations Act and a prior memorandum of settlement.

The Board found no evidence of common direction and control or a sale of a business between the Kantec group of companies, Carling Electric, and Boldt 1991.

The Board also dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding no refusal to hire.

Finally, the Board held that the 1994 memorandum of settlement did not explicitly prohibit subcontracting, and therefore Kantec did not breach the settlement by subcontracting electrical work.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant unions brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a sale of business and/or related employer declaration against the responding companies.

The Board dismissed the related employer application, finding that the preconditions of common control or direction were not met between the original company and the subsequent entities.

However, the Board found that a sale of a business occurred from the original company to the second company, as the second company acquired work intended for the original company and used its equipment.

The applications against the third company were dismissed as it operated in a distinct area of the construction industry and no transfer of business was established.

The union alleged that the employer engaged in an illegal lock-out and bargained in bad faith.

During negotiations, the employer's newly appointed representative signed a document resolving all outstanding issues, subject only to the employer president's approval of the language.

The employer subsequently tabled new, substantive proposals.

The Board found that the employer's representative had the authority to conclude an agreement and that the employer bargained in bad faith by reneging on the agreed terms.

However, because the language approval step was not completed, no collective agreement was finalized, and the application alleging an unlawful lock-out was dismissed.

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 employer filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint with the Board after referring the dispute to the Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry and receiving a favourable decision.

Bricklayers' Local 1 did not participate in the Plan proceedings and argued it was not bound by the Plan.

The Board found that Local 1 was not bound by the Plan, as it had not agreed to it and the International Union had no authority to bind it.

The Board declined to inquire into the jurisdictional dispute complaint, finding that the employer and Cement Masons had abused the Board's processes by circumventing an agreement to have the Board determine the dispute.

The applicant sought to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The Board ruled that the application related only to the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, as there were no employees in other sectors on the application date.

The Board also determined that a prior settlement and decision declaring the employer and another entity to be 'related employers' did not constitute a 'single employer' declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the application could proceed in respect of the bargaining rights relating only to the specific employer in the ICI sector.

Following a representation vote where a majority opposed the union, the Board declared that the union no longer represented the employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of the responding employer in the construction industry.

The employer alleged that the union intimidated and coerced three employees into signing membership cards and voting for the union by threatening them with internal union charges and fines for working non-union.

The Board found that the union breached section 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by using its internal disciplinary processes to coerce the employees.

Concluding that the representation vote did not reflect the true wishes of the employees and that no other remedy was sufficient, the Board dismissed the certification application under section 11(2).

In a related unfair labour practice complaint, the Board found the employer breached the statutory freeze period under section 86(2) by paying two new employees less than their agreed starting wage, and ordered damages.

The applicant trade union applied for certification, and a representation vote was held.

The responding employer sought to dismiss the application, alleging that a union representative accosted and spoke to employees outside the building where the polling station was located, thereby violating the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board dismissed the employer's request, finding no prima facie case that the union representative intimidated, coerced, or unduly influenced voters.

The Board noted that electioneering outside the polling area is permissible absent improper conduct.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, a certificate was issued.

The applicant employer associations sought relief under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union and its business manager threatened an unlawful strike.

The dispute arose over the employers' right to transfer employees to a shutdown job site at Imperial Oil.

The union asserted that a local by-law and past practice prohibited such transfers after a shutdown commenced, and threatened to discipline members who accepted transfers.

The Board found that the union's conduct constituted a threat to call or authorize an unlawful strike, as the union could not resort to self-help or threats of work stoppage to enforce its interpretation of the collective agreement.

The Board granted the application and issued cease and desist orders.

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking the reinstatement of a key union supporter whose employment was terminated shortly after the union was certified.

The employer argued the termination was for economic reasons and that the position was no longer required.

The Board found an arguable case that the termination was related to union activities and concluded that the labour relations harm to the union outweighed the harm to the employer.

The Board ordered the interim reinstatement of the employee pending the hearing of the main unfair labour practice complaint.

The Labourers filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work involving the fabrication, installation, and dismantling of wooden bulkheads for 'superflat' concrete floors at a Toyota plant expansion.

The general contractor, bound by both Labourers and Carpenters provincial agreements, subcontracted the work to a company bound only to the Labourers.

The Board held a consultation and orally ruled that the work belonged to the Carpenters, based on area practice in the ICI sector.

The Labourers and the subcontractor requested reconsideration, arguing a denial of natural justice because the Board did not hold a full oral hearing or allow viva voce evidence.

The Board denied the reconsideration request, finding that the extensive written materials filed were sufficient to determine the dispute under the expedited procedures of section 93 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant trade union alleged that the responding employer violated section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a lawful strike.

The employer challenged whether the strike was authorized by a secret ballot vote as required by section 74(4).

The Board found that the strike vote was conducted in an open manner where union officials and other employees could observe how ballots were marked.

Consequently, the strike vote did not meet the statutory requirement for a secret ballot, meaning the replacement worker prohibitions in section 73.1 did not apply.

The application and a subsequent request for reconsideration were dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union violated section 74(4) of the Labour Relations Act by failing to conduct a strike vote by secret ballot.

The union raised a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint due to undue delay.

The Board found that the applicant was aware of the alleged irregularities at the time of the vote but delayed filing the complaint for nearly two months, during which time the union and employer relied on the strike mandate and commenced a strike.

The Board concluded that the delay was significant and unexplained, and exercised its discretion to dismiss the application without inquiring into the merits.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer contravened section 73.1 of the Labour Relations Act by using six individuals to perform bargaining unit work during a lawful strike.

The individuals had been hired or transferred into pre-existing managerial positions after notice to bargain was given, without increasing the overall managerial complement.

The majority of the Board held that the plain language and purposive interpretation of section 73.1 prohibited the employer from using these individuals to perform the work of striking employees, regardless of whether the overall number of managers increased.

The employer was ordered to cease and desist from using the individuals for bargaining unit work.

A dissenting opinion argued this interpretation created an inequity not intended by the Legislature.