Jack J. Slaughter

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 alleging a violation of section 74 by the responding party union.

Following a consultation, the Board determined that there were differences of fact that could only be resolved through a hearing.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be scheduled for a hearing.

The Board considered whether a Memorandum of Agreement between Tyger Construction Inc. and the Labourers' International Union of North America (OPDC) constituted a valid collective agreement.

The Carpenters' Union had applied for certification, and the OPDC argued its agreement was a bar.

The Board determined that the Memorandum of Agreement was a valid collective agreement.

It found that the agreement incorporated by reference the terms and conditions of other collective agreements for non-ICI work, but did not make Tyger a party to those other separate collective agreements.

The Board concluded that the OPDC holds valid bargaining rights for construction labourers as defined in the agreement.

The applicant, a local union business representative, was removed from office by the international union after losing his good standing due to the late payment of a union fine.

He applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 149(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing he was removed without just cause.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, holding that section 149(2) does not create independent rights for individual members to challenge internal union discipline, but rather exists only to protect local union autonomy from unwarranted interference by a parent union.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent Innisfil Landfill Corporation requested an adjournment on the day before the hearing, citing unspecified personal and business reasons.

The Board denied the adjournment request, finding it untimely and lacking a cogent basis.

The application was withdrawn against the other respondents.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and, satisfied that more than 55% of the employees were members of the applicant, ordered that a certificate issue.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent and intervener claimed the application was untimely due to a prior voluntary recognition agreement.

Neither the respondent nor the intervener appeared at the hearing.

The Board treated the application as including a request under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act to declare the prior agreement invalid.

Finding no evidence to support the intervener's entitlement to represent the employees at the time the agreement was made, the Board declared the agreement invalid, found the certification application timely, and issued the requested certificates.

The applicants applied for certification regarding employees of the respondent working on the rehabilitation of the Welland Canal.

The respondent argued that the work was an integral part of a federal undertaking, placing labour relations under federal jurisdiction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Construction Montcalm Inc., holding that construction work, even on a federal undertaking, falls within provincial jurisdiction over labour relations.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to entertain the applications.

In a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act, the parties failed to file the required pre-hearing briefs and documentation as mandated by the Board's Rules of Procedure and Practice Note 15.

The Board expressed its dissatisfaction with the parties' disregard for the procedural rules, noting that such non-compliance wastes the Board's time and resources.

The Board emphasized that moving forward, strict adherence to the rules and practice notes will be expected to ensure the orderly and expeditious resolution of jurisdictional disputes.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervener union sought intervener status, claiming it represented employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board considered whether dues check-off lists constitute membership evidence for intervener status, the appropriate time for determining representation, and when membership evidence must be filed.

The Board found that the intervener submitted adequate evidence of representation in a timely manner and granted it status to participate as an intervener.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties disputed the bargaining unit description, specifically whether students employed in a co-operative training program should be excluded from the full-time unit.

The Board reviewed its practice of excluding such students due to their lack of long-term commitment and different terms and conditions of employment compared to permanent full-time employees.

The Board concluded that the student in question lacked a community of interest with the full-time employees and ordered that students in co-operative training programs be excluded from the bargaining unit.

A Board Officer was appointed to inquire into the duties of a disputed supervisory position.