Henry Milton Malcolm Pollit

Two unions applied under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act for directions allowing their representatives access to the respondent's remote bush camps to organize employees.

The incumbent union, which already represented the employees, was permitted to intervene.

The Board held that the only criteria for an access order under section 11 are that employees reside on property owned or controlled by the employer.

The Board rejected arguments that access should only be granted if there are no other reasonable means of communication, or that a more stringent test applies when employees are already represented by another union.

Finding the statutory criteria met, the Board directed the employer to allow access subject to specific conditions to prevent disruption.

The complainant, a third-party contractor, sought relief under sections 89, 92, and 135 of the Labour Relations Act after its work was interrupted by a picket line established by the respondent unions.

The picket line was related to a dispute involving the Toronto Transit Commission, which was governed by the special Transit Labour Disputes Act.

The Board held that the special Act exhaustively enumerated the remedies available for its enforcement, which did not include sections 89 or 135 of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the section 89 and 135 complaints for lack of jurisdiction and directed the complainant to advise if it wished to proceed with the section 92 application.

During a hearing into allegations of unlawful picketing, the complainant called an adverse party as a witness and sought to cross-examine him as of right, relying on Rule 53.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to adopt the civil rule, holding that it would instead apply the common law discretion to permit leading questions or cross-examination only if the witness demonstrates hostility or an unwillingness to answer.

The Board also ruled that section 9 of the Ontario Evidence Act does not prevent the witness's answers from being used against him in the very proceeding in which he is testifying, as the statutory protection against self-incrimination applies only to independent contemporaneous or subsequent proceedings.

The Toronto Transit Commission applied for a cease and desist direction, alleging that transit drivers engaged in an unlawful strike by refusing to cross a picket line at an Eaton's store, and that the union encouraged this action.

The union argued that the employer had a 30-year past practice of accommodating drivers who refused to cross picket lines.

The Board held that a concerted refusal to cross a picket line constitutes a strike under the Labour Relations Act, and that past practice or private arrangements cannot override the absolute statutory prohibition on strikes under the T.T.C. Act.

The Board issued declarations of an unlawful strike and cease and desist directions against the employees and the union.

The applicant alleged that the respondent trade union and its officials violated a prior Board order and the Labour Relations Act by supplying union members to a newly formed non-union contractor to perform struck work during a province-wide strike.

The Board found that while the new contractor was not a 'related employer' under section 1(4), the arrangement whereby union members continued to perform the struck work for a non-union employer violated section 146(2) of the Act.

The Board issued a cease and desist order and directed the union to inform its members that they could not perform the struck work.

The applicant employer sought to alter the descriptions of conflicting bargaining units in collective agreements with two different unions under section 91(18) of the Labour Relations Act.

One union argued the Board should defer to arbitration.

The Board held that section 91(18) is a separate charging section designed to resolve representational disputes arising from conflicting bargaining unit descriptions in industrial-type collective agreements.

The Board declined to defer to arbitration because an arbitration board could not provide the requested relief of altering the bargaining unit descriptions, and decided to entertain the application.

The complainant employer bargaining agency alleged that the respondent union violated section 134a(1) of the Labour Relations Act by failing to authorize a strike for all employees in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, specifically by continuing to supply workers for maintenance work.

The Board examined whether the work performed under various maintenance agreements constituted construction work or maintenance work.

The Board found that while most of the work was maintenance and thus outside the ICI sector, some minor new construction work was performed in violation of the Act.

However, given the union's reasonable efforts to comply and the complainant's members' inconsistent conduct, the Board declined to issue a cease and desist order and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant employer bargaining agency applied for relief under section 123 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent trade union and its business manager called an unlawful strike.

The strike occurred in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry.

The Board found that the respondents violated section 134a(1) of the Act by engaging in a selective strike when not all affiliated bargaining agents had called or authorized a strike.

The Board issued a cease and desist direction against the respondents.