John Moszynski

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that awarded him wage loss but did not explicitly award lost pension and benefits.

The applicant argued the decision conflicted with established jurisprudence.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no conflict with established jurisprudence and noting that the applicant had failed to lead evidence regarding the union's responsibility for lost pension or benefits during the original hearing.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging age discrimination against the organizational respondent union and two personal respondents.

The respondents filed a Request for an Order During Proceedings to remove the personal respondents, arguing they were acting in the course of their employment.

Applying the Persaud factors, the Tribunal found that the organizational respondent could be held vicariously liable and had the ability to remedy any infringement.

The Tribunal granted the request and removed the personal respondents from the proceeding.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision to correct an inadvertent omission in its November 20, 2001 decision.

The Board added December 10, 2001 to the schedule of continuation dates for the hearing.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the responding party employer discharged the grievor without just cause.

The grievor, a construction labourer, was absent from work for several days without notifying the employer.

Upon his return, he arrived late and responded to his foreman's inquiries with insubordination.

The employer discharged him.

The Board found that while the grievor's conduct warranted significant discipline, discharge was an excessive response.

The Board substituted a suspension for the balance of the week and the entire following week, and ordered the employer to compensate the grievor for lost wages for the remainder of his expected employment period.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural decision regarding a certification application by the applicant union to displace the intervenor union, and a related unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board identified four outstanding issues and determined that it will first address the scope of the bargaining unit description and the list of eligible voters before dealing with the remaining allegations.

Continuation dates were scheduled.

The applicant union applied to displace a bargaining unit of steeplejacks represented by the intervenor union in the ICI sector.

The intervenor argued that the applicant lacked status to bring the application because its designation order did not cover steeplejacks, relying on a previous Board decision.

The Board agreed, adopting the reasoning from the earlier decision that the applicant's general designation for restoration work did not overlap with the specific designation for steeplejacks.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The Board heard a displacement application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint in the construction industry.

The parties reached an agreement that three specific individuals were not entitled to vote as they were not at work on the application date.

Due to scheduling conflicts, the hearing for the remaining unfair labour practice complaint was adjourned to March 2002.

The Board directed the employer to post a notice reminding employees of their rights under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, pending the continuation of the hearing.

In applications for the termination of bargaining rights and related unfair labour practice complaints, the employer and applicants brought preliminary motions regarding the union's pleadings.

The Board dismissed the union's challenges to voter eligibility, finding the union failed to provide any particulars or raise a factual issue requiring a hearing.

The Board declined to dismiss the union's allegations of employer initiation under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, finding the pleadings sufficient to proceed.

The Board also declined to strike portions of the section 96 complaint for lack of particulars, instead directing the union to file further particulars within 10 days.

Finally, the Board ordered the union to proceed first in calling evidence on both the section 96 and section 63(16) issues, as the reverse onus provisions did not apply to the facts pleaded.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the responding party contractor violated the provincial collective agreement by subcontracting the delivery and stockpiling of drywall to a non-union supplier.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis of res judicata or issue estoppel, relying on a prior Board decision (*Four Seasons Drywall*) which held that the delivery of drywall to a jobsite stockpile by a supplier was not construction work covered by the collective agreement.

The Board applied the test for issue estoppel and found that the same issue had been finally decided in the prior case involving the same union and supplier.

The Board concluded it should not relitigate the issue of whether delivery of drywall constitutes construction work, and dismissed the grievance.

In a referral of a grievance in the construction industry, the responding party raised preliminary issues including the abandonment of bargaining rights.

The responding party argued that because the collective agreement had automatically renewed nine times without union contact, the evidentiary burden shifted to the union to explain its inactivity.

The Board agreed, directing the applicant union to proceed first with its evidence regarding both the existence of the collective agreement and the abandonment issue.

The applicant, the sole employee in the bargaining unit, applied to terminate the responding party's bargaining rights.

The union alleged that the application was initiated by the employer.

The employer chose not to participate in the hearing.

The Board deemed the union's allegations of employer initiation to be true as against the employer.

Finding that the employer instigated the application by contacting a rival union and facilitating the applicant's involvement, the Board dismissed the application pursuant to section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board granted the request, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The panel remained seized of the matter and offered continued mediation assistance.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and the parties agreed to count nine of the 11 ballots cast.

All nine ballots were cast in favour of the intervenor union.

As not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the application for certification was dismissed.

During a grievance hearing, the parties engaged in settlement discussions with the assistance of the Board.

When a resolution could not be reached, the parties agreed to adjourn the hearing.

The Board cancelled the previously scheduled July date and fixed October 30, 2001, for the continuation of the hearing.

The applicant union brought an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint.

Several responding parties sought to bring a motion to dismiss the unfair labour practice complaint against them on the basis that it did not make out a prima facie case.

The Board directed that the prima facie motion be heard in writing and set a schedule for submissions.

The parties agreed on the voting status of one individual, and the Board directed the counting of the ballots from the representation vote, deferring the determination of the status of two other individuals.

During a hearing for certification and an unfair labour practice application, the responding employer and the applicant union brought a motion to strike out certain allegations made by the intervenor union.

The intervenor had alleged employer support for the applicant union but failed to provide detailed particulars as directed by previous Board decisions.

The Board found the allegations to be untimely and lacking in the required particulars.

The Board also held that the reverse onus provision under section 96(5) of the Labour Relations Act did not apply to allegations of employer support.

The motion was granted, and the allegations relating to employer support were struck out.

The Labourers applied for certification to displace the Carpenters as the bargaining agent for employees of the employer.

The Carpenters filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer colluded with the Labourers by removing two carpenters from the bargaining unit and replacing them with employees who would vote for the Labourers.

The employer and the Labourers brought a motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board struck late allegations filed by the Carpenters but found that the core allegations narrowly made out a prima facie case, particularly given the reverse onus in section 96(5) of the Act.

The motion to dismiss was denied and the complaint was directed to proceed to a hearing.

In these consolidated applications for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued an interim decision addressing preliminary matters.

The Board granted intervenor status to the Labourers' Employee Bargaining Agency, Labourers Local 183, and the Masonry Contractors Association of Toronto.

The Board also ordered the production of various documents relating to the relationship between Bricklayers' Local 1 and Labourers' Local 183, and set the order of issues to be determined at the upcoming hearings.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the responding party employer discharged the grievor without just cause.

At the hearing, the Board ruled that evidence from the grievor's treating physician was not relevant.

The Board suggested the applicant might wish to proceed first with its case given the factual issues.

The applicant requested an adjournment to consider this and because the grievor's evidence would not be completed in the remaining time.

The responding party did not consent but understood the reasons.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting the parties' agreement on a cap for potential damages.

The Sheet Metal Workers filed a work assignment complaint under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, claiming that the dismantling and removal of sheet metal siding from a warehouse for reuse off-site should have been assigned to its members rather than the Labourers.

The Board considered Ontario Hydro's long-standing policy, which distinguishes between materials reused on-site versus off-site.

Finding that the skills, training, and economy criteria did not favour either union, the Board relied on the employer's established policy and practice.

The Board affirmed the assignment of the work to the Labourers and dismissed the application.