Douglas J. Wray

The applicant trade union applied for certification for employees engaged in the installation and erection of acoustical and drywall systems.

The respondent employer and an intervener union argued that the Board should revert to its normal practice of describing construction industry bargaining units by specific trades rather than by the work performed, citing a merger between the Lathers' and Carpenters' unions.

The Board declined to modify its long-standing practice of describing bargaining units in the acoustical and drywalling field by the work performed, finding no compelling reason to depart from the established organizational lines.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The complainant, a part-time dockhand, alleged that the union and employer breached sections 66(b) and 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

He claimed the union failed to represent him fairly by not consulting part-time employees during bargaining, not negotiating just cause protections for them, and refusing to file a grievance when he was removed from the part-time list.

The Board found that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 by failing to consult part-time employees prior to or during collective bargaining.

However, the Board dismissed the allegations regarding the failure to negotiate just cause protections and the refusal to file a grievance, finding the union correctly interpreted the collective agreement as not providing substantive discharge protections for part-time employees.

The section 66(b) complaint was also dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employers violated the collective agreement.

Prior to the hearing, counsel for the parties negotiated a settlement.

The respondent later argued its counsel lacked the authority to bind Min-A-Mart Ltd. The Board found that the respondent's counsel had ostensible authority to settle the matter on behalf of both employers and that the applicant reasonably relied on this representation.

The Board enforced the settlement and declared Min-A-Mart Ltd. bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The Carpenters' District Council applied to the Board under section 150 of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether two construction projects fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector or the residential sector.

One project was a mixed-use building for the Hospital for Sick Children, and the other was a building on the campus of the Salvation Army Training Centre.

The Board considered local area practice and the agreement between the Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association and the Building Trades Council.

The Board concluded that both projects were predominantly residential in character and therefore fell within the residential sector, not the ICI sector.

The applicant union, Carpenters Local 1030, applied for certification to represent a unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent outside the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The intervener union, Labourers Local 527, argued that the applicant was prohibited from bringing such an application under section 144(3) of the Labour Relations Act and from entering into a collective agreement under section 146(2).

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the Act does not restrict the applicant from bringing an application for non-ICI construction labourers.

Finding that both unions had filed sufficient membership evidence, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine which union would represent the employees.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by discharging nine employees for alleged misconduct during a strike and refusing to arbitrate their dismissals.

The misconduct involved an incident away from the plant where replacement workers were assaulted.

The Board found that some employees were discharged based on a mistaken belief of their involvement or merely for being present, which violated the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of five employees, some with back pay and others without, but upheld the discharges of those who actually participated in the physical assault.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer failed to pay travel allowances to carpenters from Essex County working on a project in Chatham, contrary to the provincial agreement.

The employer argued it was not required to pay the allowances because a union official had previously assured the employer that local Chatham carpenters would be referred to the project, leading the employer to omit travel allowances from its project costing.

The Board found that the doctrine of estoppel applied, as the employer had reasonably relied on the union official's assurance to its detriment.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant union, a newly chartered local of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, applied for certification to represent construction labourers, cement finishers, and waterproof applicators.

The interveners challenged the applicant's jurisdiction to accept these workers into membership and argued the proposed bargaining units were inappropriate under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that while the applicant had the authority to accept these workers into membership, it was an affiliated bargaining agent represented by the millwrights employee bargaining agency.

Consequently, the workers sought to be represented fell outside the province-wide bargaining regime and did not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit under section 144(1).

The applications for certification were dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The union filed membership evidence for more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

However, statements of desire opposing the certification were also filed, signed by employees who had previously signed union cards.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the statements of desire were voluntary.

The majority of the Board concluded that the statements were signed voluntarily, as management was not involved in their origination or circulation, and the employees did not sign out of fear of employer reprisals.

A dissenting Board member found that management had created a climate that thwarted voluntary expression.

The matter was directed to continue for hearing in conjunction with a related unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union for two bargaining units of the intervener employer.

The Board dismissed the application regarding the non-ICI sector as untimely.

For the ICI sector, the union argued the relevant bargaining unit for termination was the province-wide unit under the provincial agreement, meaning the applicants lacked the required 45% support.

The Board held that the correct bargaining unit for termination purposes is the employer-specific unit, not the province-wide unit.

Finding that the applicants had the requisite support within the employer's ICI unit, the Board directed a representation vote.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint after the employer attempted to transfer a records clerk job, held by a member of the complainant for 23 years, to a different bargaining unit represented by another union.

The Board determined that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute and applied section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

Weighing the criteria, particularly the employer's long-standing past practice and the collective bargaining relationship, the Board directed that the work continue to be assigned to the complainant's bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three respondent companies constituted a single employer, or alternatively, that a sale of a business occurred under section 63.

The Board found no sale of business from CM to Pioneer and declined to treat them as a single employer, noting the union had historically treated CM and Subito as separate entities.

However, the Board found that Subito and Pioneer, despite operating at different times, were associated businesses under common direction and control.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare Subito and Pioneer a single employer, binding them to the provincial agreement in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry, seeking two bargaining units: one for carpenters under section 131a(1) of the Labour Relations Act, and a second for labourers and bricklayers under section 6(1).

The Board held that section 131a deals with all applications for certification in the construction industry, and any finding of an appropriate unit under section 6(1) must be made within the confines of section 131a.

Because labourers and bricklayers would not be covered by the provincial agreement relating to carpenters, they were not appropriate for inclusion in the unit.

The Board limited the appropriate unit to carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by sub-contracting carpentry work to a non-union employer.

The respondent argued the workers were hired by the hour and some were union members.

The Board found the arrangement was a sub-contract in violation of the agreement and that the employer failed to use the union hiring hall.

The Board awarded compensatory damages to the union for the lost job opportunities, equivalent to the wages and trust fund contributions that would have been paid to union members.

The union applied for certification to represent a unit of vaultmen, messengers, drivers, and guards employed by an armoured car company.

The employer argued that the employees were guards within the meaning of section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, and that the union was ineligible to represent them because it admitted non-guards to membership.

The Board applied the conflict of interest test and found that the employees' duties did not raise a real possibility of a conflict of interest with other employees.

The Board concluded that the employees were not guards within the meaning of section 11 and granted the application for certification.

The complainant subcontractor filed a complaint under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a jurisdictional dispute over caulking work on precast concrete panels.

The respondent Carpenters Union challenged the Board's jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, arguing that its grievance was against the general contractor for violating a subcontracting clause, not a demand for work assignment from the complainant.

The Board found that the general contractor, bound by conflicting provincial agreements, had pressured the complainant to assign the work to the Carpenters.

The Board held this constituted 'requiring' the subcontractor to assign work within the meaning of section 81(1), giving the Board jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A petition in opposition was filed, signed by two employees who had previously signed union cards.

One of these employees subsequently filed a statement revoking his signature on the petition and reaffirming his desire to be represented by the union.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of the revocation statement.

Despite the statement being a standard form, the Board found no basis to refuse it at face value, as the employee had the opportunity to read and agree with it.

The Board discounted the employee's signature on the petition, leaving the union with unequivocal membership support of over 55%.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

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 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.