James Glen Knight

The applicant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by bargaining in bad faith.

The parties had previously signed a voluntary recognition agreement defining the bargaining unit.

During negotiations for a collective agreement, the employer insisted on a significantly different scope and recognition clause and bargained the issue to impasse.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that while parties may discuss altering a bargaining unit, pressing the issue to impasse violates the duty to bargain in good faith.

The Board directed the employer to withdraw its proposed clause and confirm the agreed-upon bargaining unit description.

The applicant union sought declarations that Duplex Electrical Ltd. was a successor employer to Deluxe Electrical Contractor Ltd. under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that they were related employers under subsection 1(4).

Deluxe, a unionized electrical contractor, ceased operations and transferred its tangible assets and the services of its principal to Duplex, a non-unionized parallel business.

The Board found that the transfer of assets and the principal's expertise in a bid-oriented market constituted a sale of a business under section 63.

Consequently, Duplex was bound by the collective agreement, and the subsection 1(4) application was dismissed as unnecessary.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondents in the construction industry.

The respondents and the intervener argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should be the existing broader unit of all employees engaged in concrete forming construction, and that the applicant should not be permitted to carve out its craft.

The Board held that, consistent with its general practice in the construction industry and the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, a craft trade union is entitled to carve out its craft from an existing broader bargaining unit.

The Board found no compelling reason to depart from this practice and determined the appropriate bargaining unit accordingly.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Krest Masonry Contracting Limited and Canada Contracting were one employer, or alternatively that there was a sale of a business under section 63.

Krest, a unionized masonry contractor, was bound by a collective agreement.

Canada Contracting was incorporated by family members of Krest's directors and operated as a non-union broker on the same construction sites, utilizing Krest's materials and services.

The Board found that the two companies were engaged in related business activities under common control and direction, serving as a vehicle for Krest to avoid its collective agreement obligations.

The Board granted the section 1(4) declaration, making it effective as of the application date.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the Hospital, VS Services Ltd., and the Union.

The Board entertained several preliminary motions.

The complaint against the Hospital was dismissed on consent, as it was never the complainant's employer.

The Board struck the complainant's late-filed particulars for failing to comply with a prior Board direction.

The Board also dismissed allegations relating to sections 63, 91(18), and 95 of the Labour Relations Act, as they were inapplicable.

However, the Board refused to dismiss the entire complaint against VS Services Ltd., allowing the allegations under sections 66(c), 67, and 68 to proceed.

Three employees filed complaints alleging they were discharged for raising safety concerns, contrary to section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer maintained they were discharged for leaving their work areas without authorization to conduct safety inspections and disrupting other employees.

The Board found the employer did not breach the Act, as the discharges were motivated by the employees' insubordination and disruption of work, not their safety complaints.

However, exercising its jurisdiction under section 24(7) to review the penalties, the Board upheld the discharge of one employee who had ignored a prior written warning, but substituted five-day suspensions for the other two employees who had not received clear warnings about their conduct.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A group of employees filed a petition objecting to the certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board assessed the voluntariness of the petition and found it inadmissible due to the involvement of a working foreman, who was perceived by employees as having managerial authority.

As the union demonstrated membership support of over fifty-five percent, the Board granted the application and issued certificates for the appropriate bargaining units.