A. Minsky

The Labourers referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging that their members were unlawfully laid off by the responding employer for exercising their statutory rights and because a steward was about to testify in a jurisdictional dispute.

The employer and the Carpenters union, who sought to intervene, requested that the grievance be adjourned pending the outcome of an ongoing jurisdictional dispute involving the same parties.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that the validity of the work assignment was a live issue in the grievance and that it made practical sense to await the decision in the jurisdictional dispute.

The issue of the Carpenters' right to intervene was also deferred.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board convened a hearing regarding multiple applications under sections 1(4) and 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and related unfair labour practice complaints.

On consent of the parties, the Board adjourned a related construction industry grievance referral until the related employer and sale of business applications are disposed of.

The Board also amended the style of cause to reflect a union name change, issued an oral production order, and set further hearing dates.

At a pre-hearing conference involving multiple related employer, sale of business, and unfair labour practice applications, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the order of proceeding.

The applicant unions alleged that the corporate responding parties conspired to form a new entity to circumvent bargaining rights.

The Board directed that the corporate responding parties proceed first to call their evidence, followed by the Carpenters union, and then the applicant unions.

The applicant Carpenters' union filed a jurisdictional dispute concerning the assignment of the carpentry portion of concrete forming work on a water pollution control centre project.

The work had been assigned by the subcontractor to members of the Labourers' union.

The Carpenters argued this violated a prior 'Peace Treaty' and section 162 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the Labourers' Provincial ICI agreement validly covered construction labourers performing carpentry work, and that the employer's practice and collective agreement obligations strongly favoured the assignment to the Labourers.

The Board confirmed the employer's work assignment.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking a determination on whether they could deduct amounts required under the new Employer Health Tax Act from their remittances to the union's Health and Welfare Fund.

The respondent union raised preliminary objections regarding the Board's jurisdiction and the arbitrability of the grievance.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding it premature as no concrete incident or default had yet occurred.

The Board held that the applicants were essentially seeking an advisory opinion on a hypothetical situation, which is not the intended purpose of the statutory arbitration mechanism.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a unit of employees at the respondent's restaurant.

The incumbent union did not oppose the application and abandoned its bargaining rights.

An intervener union initially alleged employer support for the applicant but later withdrew its intervention and abandoned its opposition following a settlement.

The Board found that the applicant had established sufficient membership support and, given the withdrawal of the intervener and the lack of compelling evidence of employer support, exercised its discretion under section 7(2) of the Labour Relations Act to certify the applicant without a representation vote.

The union filed grievances alleging the employers violated the collective agreement by failing to provide or pay for screws and nails used by drywall applicators.

The employers complained the union bargained in bad faith by remaining silent on the issue during negotiations to alter past practice.

The Board held that the union's silence did not constitute bad faith bargaining, as the employers should have known the terms of the preceding agreement.

Interpreting the new collective agreement, which was silent on the issue unlike its predecessor, the Board found the employers were obligated to supply the materials and could not deduct their cost from piecework rates.