David McKee

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work involving the insertion and removal of blanks in standpipes on a coke oven.

The employer had assigned the work on a fifty-fifty basis between the complainant and the respondent union.

The complainant union disputed this assignment, claiming 100% of the work, and its members subsequently walked off the job and refused to perform any of the work, including their assigned 50%.

The Board dismissed the complaint on preliminary objections, holding that the complainant could not claim entitlement to work that its members had explicitly refused to perform.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer unjustly discharged a union steward.

The union argued the discharge violated the provincial agreement and section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, claiming the steward was fired for raising safety concerns about propane fumes.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the steward's conduct was not motivated by genuine health and safety concerns, but rather by a desire to disrupt the job site using a false safety claim.

The Board concluded the employer had just cause for the discharge.

The applicant union referred a discharge grievance to the Board for arbitration under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection that the referral was untimely.

The Board found that the applicant had delayed progressing the grievance from October 1980 to February 1981 without providing any reasons for the inaction.

Balancing the delay against the potential prejudice to the respondent, the Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 37(5a) of the Act to extend the time limits.

The grievance was deemed not arbitrable and the application was dismissed.

The applicant and a group of employees applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board considered whether the petition supporting the application was voluntary, given that the employees were also shareholders bound by a shareholders' agreement to further common interests.

The Board found that the employees were motivated by their financial interests as shareholders threatened by the continuation of the union's bargaining rights, and not by the legal covenant in the agreement.

The Board concluded the petition was a voluntary expression of their wishes and directed the application to continue to determine if the signatories were employees in the bargaining unit.

In a certification application, the Board held a hearing to determine whether a Labour Relations Officer should inquire into the duties of persons classified as drillers and rock truck drivers.

The applicant union argued that drillers are labourers and rock truck drivers are teamsters, and thus neither fall within the operating engineers' jurisdiction.

The respondent employer argued that both classifications are included in its local collective agreement with the applicant.

The Board ruled that drillers are construction labourers and directed the Officer not to inquire into their duties.

However, the Board found the employer's apprehension regarding rock truck drivers valid and directed the Officer to report on their duties, noting the employer's undertaking to proceed via an agreed statement of fact.