David McKee

The complainant union alleged that the respondents violated section 78 of the Labour Relations Act by setting up a picket line at an excavation site, which they knew or ought to have known would cause employees to engage in an unlawful strike.

The respondents, representatives of an aggregate haulers association, argued their activities were a lawful demonstration to improve rates for owner-operators.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the evidence did not establish the presence of picket signs or any attempt to persuade employees to slow down or stop working.

The Board concluded that the brief delays caused to non-employee trucks did not constitute a work slowdown or establish that an unlawful strike was a reasonable and probable consequence of the respondents' actions.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the respondent employer improperly assigned the assembly of a metal meter shed to a mixed crew of carpenters and labourers instead of sheet metal workers.

The intervener union argued that the work was properly assigned based on established practice.

The Board determined that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute that should be dealt with under section 91 of the Act to allow all interested parties, including the unrepresented labourers' union, to participate.

The Board adjourned the section 124 application for 30 days to permit the filing of a jurisdictional dispute.

The Carpenters' Union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer and the Labourers' Union conspired to undermine its bargaining rights by assigning formwork to labourers instead of carpenters.

The Labourers' Union also applied for certification to displace the Carpenters' bargaining rights.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment rather than a derogation of bargaining rights, which should be resolved under the jurisdictional dispute provisions of the Act.

Regarding the certification application, the Board found that at least three persons were employed as carpenters on the application date, entitling the Labourers' Union to a pre-hearing vote.

The complainant, a carpenter and health and safety representative, alleged he was laid off in reprisal for his safety activities, contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that the employer failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for selecting the complainant for layoff, noting his average or better work performance and the friction caused by his safety duties.

Concluding that the layoff was motivated at least in part by his health and safety role, the Board ordered his reinstatement with compensation.

The applicant union applied under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that the respondents, Century Store Fixtures Ltd., Century Interiors Ltd., and Jasper Construction Inc., be treated as one employer.

The union argued that Century, a unionized interior contractor, engaged in general contracting when its carpenters worked on Jasper's sites under Jasper's direction.

The Board found that Century and Jasper operated in different markets and were not engaged in associated or related activities.

The Board concluded there was no erosion of bargaining rights, as the carpenters were covered by the collective agreement at all times, and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Kent Acoustics Limited and J.L. Acoustics Ltd. constituted a single employer.

The principal of Kent had closed the business in 1981 and later purchased a share in J.L. in 1987, eventually becoming its sole owner.

The Board found that the two companies were engaged in related activities under the common control and direction of the same principal.

Despite the gap in time between the operations, the Board exercised its discretion to grant the declaration to preserve the union's bargaining rights, binding J.L. to the applicable collective agreements.

The applicant, Tactix Construction Limited, initially applied for a related employer declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act but later sought to withdraw it.

The Board refused the withdrawal and allowed the respondent union to pursue its own claim for a related employer declaration involving Tactix and four other corporations.

The Board found that the statutory preconditions for a related employer declaration were met for all five corporations.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to declare only four of the corporations (Tactix, Mark/Barry, Stash, and Jilsen) as one employer, dismissing the application with respect to Danand Investments Limited because its common control had ceased in 1985.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by consenting to the employer's failure to apply the collective agreement to them.

The complainants were casual employees who were paid less than the union rate.

The Board found that the union had abandoned any bargaining rights it may have had to represent casual employees long before the complainants were employed.

Consequently, the union did not owe the complainants a duty of fair representation.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the respondent employer failed to pay wages and benefits to 31 employees who attended a WHMIS training course.

The employer argued the employees attended voluntarily or were not directed to attend.

The Board found that the employer failed to effectively communicate to the employees that their attendance was voluntary and unpaid.

The Board upheld the grievance, finding the employer violated the collective agreement, and ordered the payment of wages and benefits for the time spent at the course.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondents in the construction industry.

The respondents and the intervener argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should be the existing broader unit of all employees engaged in concrete forming construction, and that the applicant should not be permitted to carve out its craft.

The Board held that, consistent with its general practice in the construction industry and the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, a craft trade union is entitled to carve out its craft from an existing broader bargaining unit.

The Board found no compelling reason to depart from this practice and determined the appropriate bargaining unit accordingly.

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 employer sought to withdraw its application for a related employer declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act after a related proceeding determined that another union did not hold bargaining rights for its carpenters.

The respondent union opposed the withdrawal, arguing that its reply contained a separate claim for relief seeking a related employer declaration and bargaining rights across multiple corporations.

The Board refused to grant leave to withdraw, finding that the respondent's claim for relief had a valid labour relations purpose and that requiring the respondent to file a new application would cause unnecessary delay and potential prejudice.

The Board directed that the application be listed for hearing on its merits.

In a jurisdictional dispute over the application of aluminum cladding or lagging over insulation, the respondent Sheet Metal Workers brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint.

They argued that the work in dispute was sheet metal work, a compulsory certified trade under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act, and could therefore only lawfully be assigned to journeymen or apprentice sheet metal workers.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the Apprenticeship Act does not provide any trade with an exclusive jurisdiction and that trade jurisdictions in the construction industry frequently overlap.

The Board concluded it would be inappropriate to determine the issue without a full hearing on the merits.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit.

The employer argued that one of the two individuals in the proposed unit was not an employee, but rather a volunteer or independent contractor who occasionally helped out and received small sums of money or meals.

The Board found that the individual was a casual employee because he provided services in exchange for compensation.

The Board also declined to segregate the full-time and casual employees into separate bargaining units, as doing so would prevent collective bargaining altogether.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondents.

The respondents and interveners argued that the employees were already covered by existing collective agreements (the MTABA Agreement and the Ellis-Don Agreement) and that the applicant should not be permitted to carve out its craft from the existing bargaining units.

The Board found that the MTABA and Ellis-Don Agreements did not cover carpenters or carpenters' apprentices, denying status to the MTABA and limiting the status of Local 183.

The Board further held that, consistent with the craft-oriented nature of the construction industry and the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, the applicant was permitted to carve out its craft from the existing Form Work style agreement.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining units and directed further hearings for the remaining issues.

The complainant alleged under section 85(2) of the Labour Relations Act that the union's audited financial statements were inadequate because they were prepared by a Certified General Accountant (C.G.A.) rather than a Chartered Accountant, and lacked sufficient detail.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the Act does not require an audit to be performed by a Chartered Accountant.

The Board accepted the uncontradicted evidence that the statements were prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and that a proper audit was conducted.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer improperly interfered in the employees' selection of a trade union by encouraging them to join the intervener union instead of the applicant.

The Board found that the employer's conduct violated sections 64 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board declined to dismiss the intervener's certification application under section 13 of the Act, finding no complicity by the intervener in the employer's improper conduct.

The Board ordered the employer to post a notice to employees and directed that the certification applications proceed to a hearing on the remaining issues.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The Board had to determine whether five disputed individuals were employees in the bargaining unit on the date of application.

The Board reconsidered a previous ruling and allowed the respondent to make unrestricted submissions regarding the list of employees.

Applying the test from E & E Seegmiller, the Board examined the work performed by each individual on the application date.

The Board concluded that one individual was performing carpentry work and was included in the unit, while the other four were not.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board issued certificates to the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of employees sought to file a statement of opposition after the terminal date and requested an extension of time.

The Board declined to extend the terminal date, noting that the employees had sufficient notice and time to file their objections.

As the union filed timely documentary evidence of membership for more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

During a hearing for certification and unfair labour practice complaints, the applicant union sought to declare its own witness hostile and cross-examine him.

The witness had given testimony inconsistent with a prior statement made to the applicant's counsel regarding the employer's anti-union remarks.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed section 23 of the Evidence Act and the common law distinction between an 'adverse' and 'hostile' witness.

Finding the witness both adverse and hostile due to his prior inconsistent statement and demeanour, the Board granted the applicant leave to cross-examine the witness on all relevant matters.