Donald Francis

In an application for certification, the interveners argued that certain employees should not be counted in the bargaining unit because they were hired contrary to the existing collective agreement, relying on the April Waterproofing principle.

The Board declined to apply the principle, finding that the interveners had failed to act with reasonable diligence to enforce their bargaining rights after becoming aware of the project's resumption.

The Board directed that the ballots of the eligible employees be counted for bargaining unit #1, and dismissed the application respecting bargaining unit #2.

In an application for certification, a group of employees sought to raise allegations of impropriety regarding the union's collection of membership evidence.

The allegations were not filed by the terminal date as required by the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board found that the employees failed to comply with the rules for timely filing.

However, because the Board decided to conduct its own inquiry into a separate 'non-pay' allegation involving a membership card, a further hearing was required anyway.

Since entertaining the late allegations would not cause any significant additional delay, the Board exercised its discretion to allow the employees to introduce evidence of the alleged improprieties at the upcoming hearing.

The union applied for certification to represent employees of the Grand River Conservation Authority.

The outstanding issues were whether 15 'Superintendents' exercised managerial functions under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, and whether the bargaining unit description should specifically exclude 'Superintendents' or use the generic term 'managers'.

The Board found that the 13 Area Superintendents exercised managerial functions due to their effective control over seasonal employees, while the Head Office Superintendent and Small Dams Superintendent did not.

The Board concluded that the generic term 'managers' should be used in the bargaining unit description rather than the specific job title.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Frank Plastina Investments Ltd. (FPI) and Sherwood Village Homes Inc. (Sherwood) were related employers.

FPI was a concrete and drain contractor bound by a collective agreement with the union, while Sherwood was a residential builder.

Both companies were under the common control and direction of the Plastina family, shared premises, and had a symbiotic business relationship.

The Board found that the entities were engaged in associated or related activities or businesses and declared them to be one employer for the purposes of the Act.