D. J. Shields

The defendants sought leave to appeal a motions judge's decision granting a Representation Order to add union members as defendants after the expiry of the limitation period, and refusing to strike the plaintiff's claim.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal the Representation Order, finding that recent Court of Appeal decisions abolishing the 'special circumstances' doctrine raised serious debate about the order's correctness.

However, the court denied leave to appeal the refusal to strike the claim, finding no palpable or overriding error in the motions judge's conclusion that the novel issues of vicarious liability for picketers' intentional torts should proceed to trial.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the employer's auto parts store.

The primary dispute was whether the office clerk should be excluded from the unit as an office and clerical employee, and whether the geographic scope should be municipality-wide or site-specific.

The Board found that the office clerk performed primarily clerical functions, had a different line of supervision, and lacked functional integration with the counter clerks, parts handlers, and drivers.

Applying the Hospital for Sick Children test, the Board concluded that a unit excluding office and clerical staff was appropriate.

The Board also determined that the bargaining unit should be site-specific because the employer operated two separate divisions in the municipality.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The Carpenters' union and the Labourers' union disputed the assignment of the carpentry portion of concrete forming work on two bridge projects in Board Area No. 8.

The employer, Ellis-Don Ltd., had assigned the work to the Carpenters.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered factors including employer practice, area practice, employer preference, and economy and efficiency.

The Board found that these factors supported the assignment of the disputed work to the Carpenters, while the remaining factors were neutral.

The Board ruled that the disputed work was properly assigned to the Carpenters.

The Teamsters and individual complainants alleged that Steinberg breached the duty to bargain in good faith by negotiating a collective agreement with final offer selection and labour peace provisions, and subsequently selling its Ontario retail operations to A & P. They also alleged that the transaction constituted a sale of the distribution business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, and that the structure of the deal and A & P's subsequent hiring practices were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed all applications and complaints, finding no breach of the duty to bargain in good faith, no sale of the distribution business, and no anti-union animus in the transaction's structure or A & P's hiring practices.

The applicants and complainants brought a motion seeking a direction from the Board that the respondent Steinberg produce a witness to testify regarding an allegation of a sale of business under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents argued that the statutory duty under section 64(13) was satisfied because the co-respondent, A&P, had produced a witness.

The Board rejected this argument and directed Steinberg to adduce viva voce testimony of all facts within its knowledge material to the allegation.

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.