Joseph Liberman

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The union's constitution restricted membership to employees of a different company, and the union had no established practice of admitting persons to membership without regard to these eligibility requirements.

Applying section 105(4) of the Labour Relations Act and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Board found that the employees could not be considered members of the applicant.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition in opposition.

The Board held an inquiry into a non-pay allegation regarding union membership evidence and the voluntariness of the petition.

The Board found the membership evidence reliable because the Form 9 declarant made thorough inquiries.

However, the Board found the petition was not voluntary because it was circulated during working hours at work stations, creating a reasonable perception that management would learn who refused to sign.

The Board certified the union.

During an application for certification, the employer and objecting employees raised several allegations of impropriety regarding the union's membership evidence and organizing campaign.

The Board refused to entertain the first set of allegations, finding them untimely under Rule 72 and failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board also refused to hear a second set of allegations because the parties failed to comply with an order to provide specific particulars, including identifying the disputed membership cards.

Finally, the Board denied the employer's request to have a handwriting analyst examine the membership evidence, holding that such access would violate the confidentiality protections under section 111(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ultimately, the parties agreed to dismiss the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The Board had to determine whether the 'Gilvesy test' applied to determine which employees should be included in the bargaining unit for the purpose of the count, particularly concerning off-site mechanics under section 117(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that the Gilvesy test applies, meaning employees must have spent a majority of their time on the date of application performing bargaining unit work.

The Board found no conflict between this test and section 117(b).

Applying this test, the Board determined the status of six disputed individuals, including some on the list of employees and excluding others based on their duties on the application date.

The complainant employer filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a work assignment dispute between two unions over the off-loading and conveying of drywall materials.

The work was actually performed by the employees of the material supplier.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under subsection 91(1) because the union had not made a demand on the employer with actual responsibility for assigning the work (the supplier) to assign the work to its members.

The complaint was dismissed.

The complainants, including an employers' organization and two individual contractors, filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the Provincial Employer Bargaining Agency - Labourers violated section 151(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents raised preliminary objections.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that section 151(2) imposes a duty on the employer bargaining agency to represent individual employers, not constituent employers' organizations.

As the complaint did not plead facts showing how the individual contractors were adversely affected, and no duty was owed to the employers' organization, the complaint failed to establish a violation of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's asphalt plant operations.

The parties disputed whether six seasonal employees engaged in preparatory work at the plant/shop should be included in the bargaining unit.

The majority of the Board found that these employees were covered by the existing Kingston area agreement for construction operations, as they were construction employees temporarily preparing equipment.

Consequently, they were excluded from the proposed bargaining unit.

A representation vote was ordered for the remaining eligible employees.

The Carpenters' union filed unfair labour practice complaints against the Labourers' union and various employers, challenging subcontracting clauses in residential framing collective agreements.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaints due to delay and abuse of process.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Carpenters had delayed excessively in prosecuting the complaints, causing substantial prejudice to the respondents and striking at the heart of established bargaining relationships.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) of the Labour Relations Act to decline to inquire into the complaints and dismissed them.

The applicant sought a declaration that its collective agreement with Local 2693 was unlawful and void under the Labour Relations Act, as Local 2693 was an affiliated bargaining agent and the agreement was not a provincial agreement.

Local 2693 requested an adjournment pending a Ministerial designation or reconsideration of a prior Board decision that found it to be an affiliated bargaining agent.

The Board denied the adjournment.

Applying the doctrine of res judicata, the Board held that the prior decision determining Local 2693's status was a decision in rem and therefore binding.

Consequently, the Board declared the collective agreement unlawful, null, and void.

The applicant union applied for certification.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the union organizer had loaned the one-dollar membership fee to two employees without any arrangement or intent for repayment.

The organizer also failed to disclose these loans as exceptions on the Form 80 Declaration Concerning Membership Documents.

The Board found the loans were not bona fide, meaning the employees had not paid the fee on their own behalf.

Because the Declaration was misleading and failed to make full disclosure, the Board declined to give any weight to the union's membership evidence and dismissed the application for certification.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for employees engaged in the installation and erection of acoustical and drywall systems.

The respondent employer and an intervener union argued that the Board should revert to its normal practice of describing construction industry bargaining units by specific trades rather than by the work performed, citing a merger between the Lathers' and Carpenters' unions.

The Board declined to modify its long-standing practice of describing bargaining units in the acoustical and drywalling field by the work performed, finding no compelling reason to depart from the established organizational lines.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The complainant, an Orthodox Jew, was employed as a maintenance mechanic.

The employer instituted a training program that required the complainant to work on Saturdays.

The complainant refused due to his religious beliefs, which prohibit working from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday.

The employer terminated his employment.

The Board of Inquiry found that the employer discriminated against the complainant because of his creed.

The Board held that the Saturday work requirement was not a business necessity and that the employer failed to reasonably accommodate the complainant.

The Board ordered reinstatement and awarded $1,500 in general damages for injury to dignity.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the designation of employee and employer bargaining agencies in the construction industry, following the affiliation of the Lathers' International Union with the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America.

The Board found that the previous separate designations for the Lathers and their corresponding employers were no longer effective in either a legal or industrial relations sense.

The Board concluded that separate designations for acoustic and drywall workers were not appropriate, and recommended that all affected parties be included within a single set of comprehensive designations to reflect the consolidation of bargaining rights and avoid jurisdictional disputes.