47 total
Grievance for retroactive room-and-board allowance dismissed due to unjustified delay applying the doctrine of laches.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming retroactive room-and-board allowance for a worker at the Darlington construction project.
The worker had delayed filing the grievance for nearly three years despite being aware of the employer's refusal to pay the allowance.
The Board dismissed the grievance on the preliminary ground of laches, finding that the unjustified delay prejudiced the employer and that the worker had not been lulled into inaction by the employer's representations.
Union certified; employee petition opposing certification rejected due to involvement of working foreman.
The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.
The employer filed a list of employees, and a group of employees filed a petition opposing the certification, including some who had previously signed union membership cards.
The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the petition, which was circulated by a working foreman who, while not managerial, had a special relationship with the employer.
The Board found that the foreman's involvement could reasonably influence employees to sign the petition to avoid exposing their union allegiance.
Consequently, the Board declined to give weight to the petition and certified the union based on its documentary evidence of membership.
Lease of closed manufacturing facility did not constitute a sale of a business under section 63.
The applicant union brought an application under section 63 and/or section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a lease with an option to purchase a closed brick and tile manufacturing facility constituted a sale of a business from the former owners to the new operators.
The Board found that no business was sold, as the facility had been closed for years, required significant modifications, and no goodwill or customer lists were transferred.
The section 63 application was dismissed, and consequently, a related termination application was also dismissed.
Union did not breach duty of fair representation by limiting name hires to protect out-of-work list.
The complainant alleged that the union breached section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by preventing him from being name hired on a pipeline construction project, contrary to the union's by-laws.
The union had agreed with the contractor at a pre-job conference to limit name requests to protect members on the out-of-work list.
The Board found that the union's policy was an established practice aimed at protecting unemployed members and was not applied arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith against the complainant.
The complaint was dismissed.
Grievance referral dismissed as the applicant union was not a party to the collective agreement.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.
The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection that the applicant was not bound to a collective agreement with it.
The Board found that the employer was bound to a collective agreement with Local 1089, not the applicant Local 1059.
The Board held that the applicant had no jurisdiction to refer the grievance because it was not a party to the collective agreement.
The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Certification application dismissed as untimely due to a valid pre-existing collective agreement covering the employees.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters employed by the respondent.
The respondent and the intervener union argued the application was untimely because a valid collective agreement already existed between them covering the employees.
The Board examined the intervener's membership evidence for the employees at the time the agreement was signed.
Although one employee was in arrears on dues and suspended from some privileges, the Board found he remained a member for the purpose of establishing representation entitlement.
Finding that the intervener represented a majority of the employees when the agreement was entered into, the Board held the collective agreement was valid and acted as a bar to the certification application.
Employer's closure of construction site on Fridays to force union concessions constituted an unlawful lockout.
The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer engaged in an unlawful lockout and violated several provisions of the Labour Relations Act by attempting to force employees to work under terms less favourable than their provincial collective agreement.
Facing cost overruns and pressure from the owner, the employer sought to implement a four-day work week with extended hours at straight time, contrary to the collective agreements of several trades.
When the union refused, the employer closed the site on Fridays, effectively reducing the employees' hours.
The Board found that the employer's actions constituted an unlawful lockout designed to compel the union to agree to concessions.
The Board also found that the employer violated section 146(2) of the Act by attempting to negotiate a separate local arrangement inconsistent with the provincial agreement.
