Douglas John Wray

The applicant employee filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights on the same day a conciliation officer was appointed.

The union argued the application was untimely and that the applicant lacked status as an employee because he had not paid union dues.

The Board held the application was timely because it was not made 'after' the date the conciliation officer was appointed.

The Board also found the applicant remained an employee in the bargaining unit because, although he failed to pay dues, the union had not required his discharge under the collective agreement.

Finally, the Board concluded the petition opposing the union was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

The applicant, a general contractor, sought a direction from the Ontario Labour Relations Board to stop the respondent union from picketing its construction site.

The union was engaged in a lawful province-wide strike and began picketing after the applicant hired a non-union subcontractor to perform work previously done by the striking union's members.

The picketing caused other unionized trades to refuse to work.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that by having non-union employees perform the struck work, the applicant involved itself in the labour dispute.

Therefore, the picketing was 'in connection with a lawful strike' and protected under the Labour Relations Act.

The union applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's hatchery.

The employer objected, arguing the employees were employed in agriculture and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act under section 2(b).

The union countered that section 2(b) violated the Charter.

The Board unanimously found that the hatchery employees were employed in agriculture.

On the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, the majority held that the Board is a 'court of competent jurisdiction' under section 24(1) of the Charter and has the authority under section 52(1) to determine whether the agricultural exemption is constitutional.

The employer's objection to jurisdiction was dismissed, and the matter was directed to be scheduled for a hearing on the Charter challenge.

A dissenting member would have found the Board lacked jurisdiction to strike down the exemption.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 107 of the Labour Relations Act regarding whether the trade union held bargaining rights for the employer's carpenters in all sectors other than the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector in Board Area 3, and whether the union's request for a conciliation officer was proper.

The employer argued that the union never had non-ICI bargaining rights, or alternatively, had abandoned them.

The Board found that the original 1965 collective agreement granted the union bargaining rights for all sectors, and that the union had not abandoned these rights despite a period of inactivity, as the employer had not performed non-ICI work in the area during that time.

The Board concluded that the union held the bargaining rights and the Minister had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The complainants, former employees of a closed dairy plant, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by endtailing their seniority when they transferred to another plant, rather than dovetailing it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union faced a difficult choice between competing groups of employees with different legal rights under separate collective agreements.

The Board concluded that the union's decision to endtail the transferring employees' seniority was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or made in bad faith, as it was based on legitimate factors including the employees' legal positions and the employer's stance.

The Carpenters' union filed unfair labour practice complaints against the Labourers' union and various employers, challenging subcontracting clauses in residential framing collective agreements.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaints due to delay and abuse of process.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Carpenters had delayed excessively in prosecuting the complaints, causing substantial prejudice to the respondents and striking at the heart of established bargaining relationships.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) of the Labour Relations Act to decline to inquire into the complaints and dismissed them.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a unit of carpenters employed by the respondent.

The intervener trade union sought to participate, arguing it already represented the employees under existing collective agreements or, alternatively, had membership evidence for at least one affected employee.

The Board found the existing agreements did not cover carpenters but granted the intervener status based on membership evidence filed at the hearing.

The Board also held the respondent could not resile from a prior written agreement with the applicant regarding the list of employees in the bargaining unit, though the intervener remained free to challenge the list.

The interveners sought clarification and reconsideration of a prior Board decision regarding document production and summonses.

The Board clarified its directions, varied one subparagraph on consent, and otherwise denied the request for reconsideration.

The Board affirmed that the documents in question were arguably relevant to the issues and must be produced, despite the potential burden of compliance.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held but no ballots were cast because the employees were not on the job site.

The applicant union failed to object or request a new vote until almost three months later, well past the deadline.

The Board held that the test for timeliness of objections is whether, with reasonable diligence, the factual basis would not have come to the objector's attention before the deadline.

Finding that the applicant failed to exercise reasonable diligence, the Board denied the request for a new vote and dismissed the application.

During proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the applicant issued summonses to two individuals requiring them to produce various documents relating to collective agreements and bargaining history.

The interveners objected to the scope of the summonses, arguing they were overly broad, irrelevant, and constituted a fishing expedition.

The Board held that a party seeking production through a summons need only demonstrate that the documents are arguably relevant to the matters in issue.

Finding that the requested documents were arguably relevant to the interpretation of the collective agreements and the admissibility of extrinsic evidence, the Board ordered production but narrowed the scope of the summonses to ensure they were not overly broad.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union and its officials violated sections 3, 68, 70, and 72(5) of the Labour Relations Act by conducting union meetings unconstitutionally, disciplining the complainants, and denying them the right to vote in a strike vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the section 68 complaint because it did not involve representation with an employer.

The section 72(5) complaint was dismissed because section 149a governed ICI sector strike votes and required complaints to be made to the Minister within ten days.

The section 70 and section 3 complaints were dismissed for failing to plead a prima facie case of intimidation or coercion.

The Board considered a referral of a grievance to arbitration and a complaint over an assignment of work regarding concrete forming work at the Kipling Acres Home for the Aged.

The parties disputed whether the work was in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

The Board decided to defer further consideration of the matters until February 16, 1987, to allow an Industrial Inquiry Commissioner to attempt to mediate a resolution to the broader dispute between the Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders' Association and various unions over concrete forming work.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking a determination that there was an established local area work practice of its members performing the cutting and placing of lagging within its geographic jurisdiction.

The Board acted as the committee provided for under the provincial agreement to determine the work practice.

After reviewing the evidence of lagging work on industrial and commercial construction sites, the Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that contractors bound to the agreement had recognized the union's claim to the work.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants sought a declaration that A & P was a successor employer to New Dominion Stores Inc. following a corporate reorganization, and that an intermingling of employees had occurred, justifying the termination of Local 206's bargaining rights or a representation vote.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred and A & P was bound by the collective agreement with Local 206.

However, the Board found no intermingling of employees and declined to order a representation vote.

To resolve the conflict between the provincial agreement and Local 206's agreement, the Board amended both agreements to confine Local 206's rights to the specific Chatham store.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer improperly subcontracted concrete forming work.

The respondent and intervening unions requested a preliminary determination under section 150 of the Labour Relations Act as to whether the work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The Board granted the request, finding it appropriate to determine the sector issue before hearing the merits of the grievance, given the potential illegality of the collective agreement if it purported to cover ICI work.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith and unlawfully locked out employees during first contract negotiations.

The union argued that the employer engaged in surface bargaining and that the lockout, along with the use of temporary replacement workers, was motivated by anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer had engaged in permissible hard bargaining rather than surface bargaining.

The Board concluded that the employer's refusal to agree to a compulsory union membership clause was based on a genuine matter of principle, and that the lockout was lawfully motivated by a desire to control the timing of a work disruption and to pressure the union into modifying its bargaining positions.

The Board was asked to determine whether the construction of the Baker Centre, a non-profit combined nursing home, retirement home, and day-care facility, fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector or the residential sector of the construction industry.

After hearing extensive evidence on industry practice and the nature of the facility, the Board concluded that the project fell within the ICI sector.

The Board reasoned that the facility is an institution providing a socially beneficial service, with residents conducting daily activities in shared areas under the direction of a management firm, distinguishing it from typical residential construction.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent full-time and part-time employees of the respondent hotel.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit descriptions except for the inclusion of front desk staff.

The union argued that front desk staff lacked a community of interest with the service employees and should be excluded.

The respondent and objecting employees argued for their inclusion to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Board held that the front desk staff's clerical and administrative duties, along with their physical separation, demonstrated a lack of community of interest with the service unit.

The Board excluded the front desk staff from the bargaining units, with one member dissenting on the basis of undue fragmentation.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by using non-union workers to install overhead doors on two projects.

The respondent argued the union's evidence was largely hearsay and inadmissible.

The Board held that under the Labour Relations Act, it has the discretion to admit and rely on hearsay evidence if it is logically probative and the opposing party has a fair opportunity to contradict it.

Relying on the uncontradicted hearsay evidence, the Board found the respondent violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay damages for the lost man-hours.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers.

Following a previous Board decision determining the applicant was an affiliated bargaining agent, the applicant requested to amend its proposed bargaining unit to exclude the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector under section 144(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and an intervener union opposed the amendment, arguing the applicant could not seek certification outside the ICI sector if it was barred within it.

The Board held that section 144(3) does not restrict the applicant from seeking a non-ICI unit, finding the amended unit appropriate.

The Board also declined the intervener's request to extend the terminal date, finding no prejudice or necessity, and authorized a Board Officer to inquire into the employee lists.