71 total
Work assignment complaint upheld; installation of washroom accessories assigned to Plumbers' Union based on historical agreement.
The Plumbers' Union filed a work-assignment complaint under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the installation of washroom accessories at a hospital renovation project.
The general contractor, Pigott Construction Limited, had assigned the work to its own carpenters.
The Plumbers' Union relied on a 1965 international agreement between the Plumbers' and Carpenters' unions that assigned such work to the Plumbers.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board upheld the complaint, finding that the 1965 agreement was valid and had been historically recognized in the area, and declared that the work should have been assigned to the Plumbers' Union.
Board determines appropriate craft bargaining units and defers subsequent all-employee certification applications.
The Board heard procedural matters regarding multiple certification applications filed by construction trade unions (Carpenters, Labourers, Painters) and the RWDSU for employees of Guillot Builders Limited.
The Board ruled that the standard craft bargaining units were appropriate, denying RWDSU's request for an all-employee unit or to amend its applications to seek craft units.
RWDSU's applications were deferred pending the resolution of the craft unions' applications.
The Board also denied an adjournment request from an employee objector seeking to retain counsel, and set out the procedure and order of evidence for the remaining issues to be heard.
Board resolves employee list disputes and directs representation vote in construction industry certification application.
The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent.
The parties disputed the inclusion of five individuals on the list of employees.
The Board applied the Gilvesy test to determine employee status on the date of application.
The Board found that one individual did not exercise managerial functions and was included, another was performing bargaining unit work and was included, and two others were more likely than not employees and were included.
One individual was excluded due to insufficient evidence.
Finding that the union had the requisite membership support, the Board directed a representation vote.
Construction grievance deferred to allow filing of a jurisdictional dispute complaint over work assignment.
The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer engaged non-union personnel to perform demolition work.
The intervener union argued the grievance was essentially a jurisdictional dispute and requested deferral.
The Board agreed that the issues raised constituted a jurisdictional dispute best dealt with under section 91 of the Act.
The Board adjourned the grievance for 21 days to allow the filing of a jurisdictional dispute complaint.
Pallet yard work in rehabilitation program found to be construction industry work covered by collective agreement.
The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the grievor was laid off in violation of the collective agreement.
The respondent employer argued that the collective agreement did not apply because the grievor was working in a pallet yard as part of a rehabilitation program for injured workers, which it claimed was not construction industry work.
The Board found that the collective agreement contained a latent ambiguity regarding its application to the pallet yard work.
Relying on extrinsic evidence, including the deduction of union dues and the application of trade jurisdictions in the pallet yard, the Board concluded that the parties intended the collective agreement to apply.
The grievance was allowed.
Objections to representation vote dismissed; alleged electioneering and voter challenges did not compromise ballot secrecy.
The objectors sought to set aside the results of a representation vote in a union certification application, alleging irregularities including improper challenges to voter eligibility, electioneering by union supporters, and intimidation near the polling area.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the objections, finding that the segregation of a challenged ballot followed standard procedure and did not compromise ballot secrecy.
The Board also found that the alleged electioneering and the presence of a union supporter near the polling area did not violate any specific Board direction, destroy the secrecy of the vote, or prevent the vote from revealing the true wishes of the employees.
Union's application for first contract arbitration withdrawn after Board refused late filing of supplementary evidence.
The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.
At the hearing, the union sought leave to file a supplementary statement containing new material facts, which the respondent opposed.
The Board denied leave, citing the strict time limits and requirements of Practice Note 18.
The union also moved for a direction based solely on the pleadings and the existence of a lengthy strike, which the Board also denied, noting that evidence was required to establish the statutory prerequisites.
Following these rulings, the union sought leave to withdraw its application, and the Board terminated the matter.
Board orders ballot box opened, finding campaign propaganda did not impair employees' freedom of choice.
During a union certification campaign, a pre-hearing representation vote was held and the ballot box was sealed due to allegations of improper campaign material distributed by the intervener union.
The applicant union alleged the material was false, misleading, and contained discriminatory caricatures, arguing for a second vote.
The Board dismissed the preliminary objections regarding timeliness and withdrawn allegations.
On the merits, the Board found the campaign material, while containing crude stereotypes, was typical campaign propaganda that would not impair the employees' freedom of choice.
The Board directed that the ballot box be opened and the vote counted.
Board directs representation vote after finding employee petition opposing union certification was voluntary.
The applicant union applied for certification.
A group of objecting employees filed petition cards expressing opposition to the union.
The union challenged the voluntariness of these petition cards, arguing they were tainted by an earlier petition circulated in circumstances that might have created a perception of management involvement.
The majority of the Board found that the employer's behaviour was restrained and there was no evidence of management involvement in the origination or circulation of the petitions.
The Board concluded the petition cards represented a voluntary expression of employee wishes and directed a representation vote.
One Board member dissented, finding the second petition tainted by the flaws of the first.
Union did not breach duty of fair representation by negotiating a reduced mandatory retirement age.
The complainant, a 65-year-old employee, alleged that the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by negotiating a collective agreement that reduced the automatic retirement age from 70 to 65.
The union had agreed to the age reduction as an inducement to younger workers in exchange for their support in prioritizing improved, indexed pensions for retirees.
The Board held that the union's decision was based on a rational balancing of competing interests within the bargaining unit.
The Board concluded that the union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.
Union certified despite rank-and-file organizers misrepresenting two-tiered initiation fee structure to employees.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent the respondent's part-time employees.
The respondent employer alleged that the union's membership evidence was tainted because rank-and-file employees assisting in the organizing campaign misrepresented the union's two-tiered initiation fee structure, telling employees it would cost $1 to join now but $20 later.
The Board found that the union's fee structure itself was acceptable and that the misstatements were made by rank-and-file employees, not full-time union organizers.
The Board concluded that the misrepresentations did not warrant discounting the membership cards or ordering a representation vote.
A certificate was issued to the applicant.
One Board member dissented, arguing a vote should be ordered due to the misrepresentations.
