Frederick Otto Reinhold von Veh

The applicant union (IWA) sought interim relief in relation to its pending related employer/sale of business and unfair labour practice applications against the responding employers and a rival union (CMEU).

The IWA requested consolidation of the files, expedited hearings, suspension of the CMEU's collective agreement, dues held in trust, bargaining orders, and access to employees.

The Board granted the request to expedite the hearings but dismissed all other requests for interim relief, finding that the requested orders were either substantive rather than procedural, unnecessary to preserve the status quo, or inappropriate given the Board's remedial powers at the conclusion of the litigation.

The applicant filed an application for the termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had received interim certification on May 25, 1981, and a final certificate on June 30, 1981.

The application was filed on June 9, 1982.

The issue was whether the one-year period under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act, during which a union is protected from termination applications, runs from the date of interim certification or the final certificate.

The Board held that the one-year period commences on the date the final certificate is issued, as interim certification does not finally determine the bargaining unit.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as untimely.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by laying off 131 employees and transferring production to another plant as a reprisal for a protracted strike.

The union also alleged that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose its relocation plans during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's decision to open a new plant was part of a legitimate corporate strategy to rationalize production and was not motivated by anti-union animus.

The Board further held that the employer was not required to disclose its plans during bargaining because it reasonably believed, in good faith, that the new plant would not adversely affect the job security of the existing bargaining unit.

The layoffs were found to be the result of an unanticipated economic downturn rather than a reprisal.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent was bound by a provincial agreement.

The respondent denied being bound, arguing a prior working agreement did not create bargaining rights.

The applicants argued this issue was res judicata due to prior Board decisions.

The Board held that a principle analogous to res judicata applies to its proceedings and precluded the respondent from relitigating the effect of the working agreement, directing the matter to be re-listed for hearing on the merits.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a grievance filed by a rival union against a general contractor regarding a subcontracting clause constituted a demand for work assignment.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that the mere filing of a grievance against a general contractor does not amount to requiring an employer to assign particular work to persons in a particular trade union within the meaning of section 81(1).

The Board reviewed the legislative history and jurisprudence, concluding that the general contractor is not the 'employer' making the work assignment in this context.