Alexander J. Ahee

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the employer violated the provincial collective agreement.

The employer argued the union held no bargaining rights in the ICI sector.

The union relied on a 1986 grievance settlement, payment of damages, and a single month of union referrals to establish bargaining rights or an estoppel, conceding its 1986 voluntary recognition agreement was invalid for the ICI sector.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding the union's evidence insufficient to establish bargaining rights in the ICI sector, noting that parties should not stumble into such significant statutory liabilities.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer violated the provincial agreement.

The parties agreed to first determine whether the employer was actually bound by the agreement.

The Board found that although the employer had signed various documents, including a 'letter of assent' and a 'signing page', these were signed on the understanding they would not be enforced and did not constitute formal voluntary recognition.

The Board concluded the employer was not legally bound by the provincial agreement and terminated the proceedings.

The applicants sought relief under sections 135 and 89 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondents entered into an unlawful arrangement during a lawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry.

Members of the respondent union employed by Kamtar went on strike but later returned to perform the same work for Quinard under a 'maintenance agreement'.

The Board found that the work, which involved replacing large pieces of equipment and installing new piping, constituted construction work in the ICI sector, not maintenance work.

Consequently, the arrangement between Quinard and the union violated section 146(2) of the Act.

The Board directed the respondents to cease applying the maintenance agreement and to cease supplying and employing union members on the project.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer for Local 353 and the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council.

Local 353, previously bargaining through the Council, sought to bargain separately with the employer and gave notice of its withdrawal from the Council's bargaining unit.

The Board found that the Council acted merely as an agent for Local 353, not as a certified council of trade unions, and that Local 353 had not abandoned its individual bargaining rights.

The Board concluded that Local 353 provided proper notice under the Labour Relations Act and the collective agreement, and therefore the Minister had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer for both Local 353 and the Council (for the remaining unions).

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union alleged that a sale of a business occurred between Norfinch Developments Limited and Norfinch Construction (Toronto) Limited, and that various Norfinch and Samteit companies were related employers.

The Board found no sale of a business had occurred, as no part of the predecessor's business was transferred to the successor during a corporate break-up.

However, the Board granted a related employer declaration with respect to Norfinch Developments Limited and the Samteit companies, finding they were under common control and direction.