Douglas John Wray

The applicant union applied for a declaration of successor rights under section 54 of the Labour Relations Act following a purported merger with the respondent association.

The intervener employer raised a preliminary objection that the applicant lacked status as a trade union in Ontario because it had no prior presence, officers, or permanent office in the province.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the statutory definition of a trade union does not require a pre-existing presence in Ontario.

Finding that the applicant was a viable organization of employees with a written constitution and elected officers, the Board concluded it was a trade union within the meaning of the Act and directed the matter to proceed on the merits.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent school board violated the subcontracting provision of the provincial collective agreement by awarding a construction contract to a non-union general contractor.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the respondent was acting in its capacity as an owner letting a primary contract, rather than as an employer in the construction industry subcontracting out work.

Because the respondent did not itself subcontract out any work, its actions did not fall within the purview of the collective agreement's subcontracting restriction.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that two related construction companies constituted one employer and were bound by its collective agreement.

The respondent companies were under common control, but one operated as a unionized company while the other operated non-union.

When the unionized company was denied a subcontract because it lacked affiliation with the Carpenters union, the non-union company signed a voluntary recognition agreement with the Carpenters to secure the work.

The Board found that the Carpenters' bargaining rights were validly acquired based on pre-existing contractual obligations and declined to exercise its discretion to revoke those rights, dismissing the application.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition in opposition, but the Board found it was not voluntary due to perceived management involvement.

However, the respondent employer alleged that union organizers used intimidation to obtain membership cards.

The Board found that a union organizer made an intimidating statement to an employee.

Given the organizer's role in collecting all the cards, the Board ordered a representation vote rather than granting outright certification.

Board Member Archer dissented, finding the intimidation allegation vague and would have certified the union.

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.

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

A witness summoned by the applicant failed to attend the hearing despite being personally served with a Summons to Witness and conduct money.

The applicant requested that the Board enforce the summons.

The Board held that it has the authority under the Labour Relations Act to enforce the attendance of a witness in the same manner as a court of record in civil cases, which includes issuing a warrant for arrest.

Finding the witness's evidence material to the case, the Board issued a warrant directing the Sheriff to arrest the witness and bring him before the Board.

The complainant union alleged that the employer dismissed a probationary employee because of her activities as a union steward, contrary to The Labour Relations Act.

The employer argued the Board should defer to grievance arbitration under the collective agreement.

The Board refused to defer, noting the employee's probationary status might preclude arbitration and the dispute arose under a first collective agreement.

On the merits, the Board found the employer failed to prove the dismissal was untainted by anti-union animus, given the employee's excellent performance and the timing of her dismissal immediately following her union activities.

The Board ordered reinstatement with full compensation and directed the employer to post a notice.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 1(4) and 55 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the section 1(4) application regarding Spanway Building Systems Ltd. and Amorico Associates Ltd., finding they were not related businesses, though a corporate name change did not affect existing bargaining rights.

Regarding section 55, the Board found that a sale of a business occurred when Spanway Buildings Limited acquired the assets, premises, and exclusive franchise of Spanway Building Systems Ltd. Consequently, Spanway Buildings Limited was declared a successor employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

In an application for certification, the applicant union filed membership cards, three of which did not indicate that the employees had paid the minimum one dollar initiation fee.

The union sought to adduce oral evidence to establish that the payments were made.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the payment of the initiation fee is a substantive requirement of membership under the Labour Relations Act, not merely a formal or technical defect.

Consequently, under the Board's Rules of Procedure, oral evidence could not be admitted to cure this substantive defect.

The defective cards were discounted, and the matter was listed for a continuation of the hearing.

The applicant union grieved a two-week suspension imposed on a truck driver who also served as chief steward.

The employer alleged the grievor deliberately attempted to curtail production by organizing truck convoys, extending breaks, and pressuring other drivers to limit their daily loads.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the grievor's conduct constituted serious interference with the employer's operations and violated the collective agreement.

The Board held that the employer had reasonable cause for discipline and that the two-week suspension was justified, noting that a union steward's leadership position may invite a greater penalty for engaging in conduct that disrupts work.

The grievance was dismissed, with one board member dissenting.

The applicant union was certified to represent employees at the respondent's new plant when only two employees were working.

Subsequently, two other unions intervened, arguing that the certificate was issued during a period of workforce build-up and should be reconsidered.

The Board found that a significant increase in the workforce was planned at the time of the original application, such that the two employees did not constitute a representative segment.

The Board exercised its power under section 95(1) of the Labour Relations Act to revoke the certificate and directed the taking of a representation vote.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent contractor violated a provincial agreement by contracting out work to a firm employing members of an intervening union.

The respondent and intervener argued the work fell within the residential sector, while the applicant claimed it was in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector.

The Board determined that the sector issue under section 135 of the Act should be resolved prior to considering the merits of the grievance or the intervener's jurisdictional dispute complaint.

The applicant trade union was certified to represent a bargaining unit.

Subsequently, the intervener trade union applied for certification for essentially the same group of employees and sought reconsideration of the earlier certificate, arguing it was issued during a period of build-up.

Another trade union also sought to intervene.

The applicant and respondent challenged the status of both unions to intervene following the issuance of a certificate.

The Board held that a trade union representing at least one employee in the bargaining unit has the necessary degree of interest to attain party status.

As both intervening unions met this requirement, the Board granted them intervener status to seek reconsideration of the earlier decision.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer indicated a planned build-up of the workforce from 9 to 35 employees.

The Board applied its build-up principles, noting that 9 employees did not constitute a substantial and representative segment of the projected workforce.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be taken among the employees presently working in the bargaining unit, which had since grown to 35 employees.