J. Hanson

Three employers applied for judicial review of arbitration awards that reinstated employees who had been discharged following criminal convictions for sexual assault in the workplace.

In each case, the arbitrators had allowed the unions to collaterally attack the criminal convictions and had concluded the employees were innocent.

The Divisional Court granted the applications and quashed the arbitration awards, holding that a criminal conviction cannot be collaterally attacked at a subsequent arbitration.

The doctrine of abuse of process prevents an arbitrator from retrying a criminal case and treating a conviction as merely prima facie evidence.

In a referral of a construction industry grievance to arbitration, the Board considered whether the Metropolitan Toronto Road Builders Association (MTRBA) should be granted status to intervene.

The grievance involved allegations that the responding party failed to properly pay union members for overtime work on the Highway 407 project.

The Board found that the MTRBA did not have status to intervene as of right, as it was not bound by the specific Project Agreement in question.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to grant the MTRBA intervenor status to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and ensure the decision would bind all relevant subcontractors performing work on the project.

The complainant sought to enforce two summonses served on witnesses.

The Board found that neither summons was enforceable.

One summons was served outside the Board's jurisdiction in Michigan and was accompanied by a money order rather than cash.

The other summons was also accompanied by a money order, which does not constitute proper conduct money under the rules.

The Board ruled that conduct money must be paid in cash, not by cheque or money order, and that service must occur within the Board's jurisdiction.

The Communications Workers of Canada applied for certification to represent employees of CTG Telecommunications Systems, an interconnect company that sells, installs, and maintains telephone systems.

The respondent challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations were an integral part of the Bell Canada network and thus fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board held that the respondent's operations were not vital, essential, or integral to the core federal undertaking of Bell Canada, and therefore fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The Board also determined the composition of the appropriate bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote.