3 total
Board dismissed unfair labour practice complaint but assumed jurisdiction to enforce jurisdictional dispute settlement decision.
The applicants filed complaints regarding a work assignment dispute, alleging unfair labour practices under section 89 and seeking enforcement of a jurisdictional dispute settlement under section 91(14) of the Labour Relations Act.
The respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing the section 89 complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case and the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14).
The Board dismissed the section 89 complaint, finding it was essentially a work assignment dispute.
However, the Board held it had jurisdiction to entertain the section 91(14) complaint because the Plan Administrator had made a clear decision.
The Board deferred consideration of the section 91(1) complaint until the section 91(14) matter was resolved.
Grievance for reporting pay dismissed; employer reasonably shut down shift due to severe weather.
The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying reporting pay to afternoon shift employees who were sent home due to severe weather.
The employer had determined that gale-force winds and flying debris created an emergency endangering employee safety, necessitating a shutdown of the shift.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement granted the employer the subjective discretion to determine when an emergency shutdown was necessary to protect life and safety.
The Board concluded the employer's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and was in fact reasonable under the circumstances.
Application for accreditation dismissed as applicant lacked representation evidence for a sufficient number of employers.
The applicant employers' organization sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for certain employers in the residential sector of the elevator construction industry.
The Board had to determine whether several employers should be included on the Schedule E list of employers, which required analyzing whether their work constituted 'construction' (repair) or 'maintenance'.
The Board found that the work of four challenged employers constituted construction work, bringing the total number of employers on the list to eleven.
Because the applicant only filed representation evidence for five of those eleven employers, the application for accreditation was dismissed pursuant to section 127(2) of the Labour Relations Act.
