Edward T. McDermott

The union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote under section 9 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer objected, arguing that the union's documentary evidence consisted only of applications for membership, not actual membership, and that some employees had subsequently withdrawn their support.

The Board held that for the purposes of section 9, an application for membership is sufficient to establish membership support, consistent with long-standing Board practice and legislative intent.

The Board further held that letters withdrawing support do not constitute a revocation of membership.

The Board directed that the ballots from the pre-hearing vote be counted.

The complainant filed a section 68 complaint against the union regarding its decision not to take his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The union and the employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint due to a nine-month delay in filing.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the delay was not extreme enough to cause severe prejudice to the respondents' ability to mount a defence or to their collective bargaining relationship.

The matter was directed to be relisted for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer and an objecting employee argued that the union's membership evidence should be rejected or a representation vote ordered because the union used a two-tiered initiation fee ($1.00 now, $300.00 later) and allegedly coerced employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the union's organizing tactics and found that the two-tiered fee was properly explained and allowed employees to join for the lower fee up until a first contract was signed.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct did not cross the line into misrepresentation, coercion, or intimidation.

Finding that over 55 percent of the employees were members, the Board certified the union without a vote.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Ethyl Canada, Inc. and F.I.R.M., a mechanical contractor, constituted a single employer.

The union alleged that Ethyl was using F.I.R.M. to erode the bargaining unit's work jurisdiction over supplementary maintenance.

The Board found that while the two entities had a close relationship, F.I.R.M. was not a mere instrumentality of Ethyl, and Ethyl had a long-standing practice of subcontracting such work.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration, noting the potential for jurisdictional disputes and the union's delay in bringing the application.

Ten employees brought a complaint alleging their employer bargained in bad faith contrary to section 14 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating amendments to a pension plan with their union that affected their individual voluntary contributions.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that the duty to bargain in good faith is owed exclusively to the trade union as the certified bargaining agent, and individual employees have no standing to bring a section 14 complaint against the employer.