David C. Daniels

The Board considered the order of proceedings for multiple applications involving the Carpenters' Union and Scarborough Town Centre Holdings Inc. The employer sought to have its non-construction employer application heard before the union's single employer/successor employer application.

The Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the non-construction employer application until bargaining rights were established, and ordered that the single employer/successor employer application be heard first.

The applicant employer filed two applications seeking a declaration that it is a 'non-construction employer' under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The first application was filed before legislative amendments changed the definition of 'non-construction employer', while the second was filed after.

The responding union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the first application for delay and argued that the new definition should apply.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding no prejudice to the union from the delay, and held that the first application would be determined under the pre-amendment definition because the applicant's substantive rights were affected and the proceeding was commenced under the old legislation.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the responding party union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking to have the union process a grievance regarding long-term disability benefits.

During a consultation, the Board noted that the collective agreement appeared to contain an article precluding a successful grievance.

The Board ordered the applicant to provide a clear statement of facts and the specific collective agreement provisions allegedly violated, and scheduled a continuation of the consultation to hear submissions on whether a remedy is available and whether the application should be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant union filed a construction grievance seeking damages for the respondent employer's failure to assign plaster removal work to its members, following a successful jurisdictional dispute.

The employer argued that the collective agreement precluded damages and that the assignment was not unreasonable.

The Board found that while the collective agreement did not expressly preclude damages in this specific scenario, damages for an incorrect work assignment should only be awarded if the employer acted unreasonably.

Applying the Robertson Yates test, the Board concluded that the employer's assignment of the work to the painters was not unreasonable given the circumstances, including the urgency of the project and the ancillary nature of the work.

The application for damages was dismissed.

The union applied for certification and alleged unfair labour practices against the employer, including the termination of a union supporter and the circulation of an anti-union questionnaire by a managerial employee.

The Board found that the termination was motivated by anti-union animus and that the questionnaire constituted unlawful interference.

Concluding that a representation vote would not reflect the true wishes of the employees due to the chilling effect of the employer's actions, the Board granted automatic certification under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and ordered the reinstatement of the terminated employee with compensation.

The applicant union sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to prohibit the employer from relocating planing mill operations to a sawmill facility, or alternatively, an order assigning the planing work to its members pending the disposition of related unfair labour practice and work assignment complaints.

The employer planned to consolidate operations, taking the position that the relocated work would fall under the respondent union's collective agreement.

The Board found an arguable case for the work assignment but concluded the balance of harm did not favour granting interim relief, as the applicant did not challenge the employer's right to transfer operations and a temporary reassignment of work would cause equal prejudice to the respondent union.

The application for interim relief was dismissed.

The applicant trade union sought certification for employees at a Canadian Tire outlet.

Objecting employees challenged the constitutionality of section 8(4) of the Labour Relations Act, which precludes the Board from considering post-application evidence of employees revoking union support, arguing it violated their Charter rights to freedom of expression, association, and equality.

The Board dismissed the Charter challenges, finding any infringement of expression was justified under section 1, and rejected claims of defective membership evidence based on alleged misrepresentations by rank-and-file organizers.

The Board also affirmed the appropriateness of the union's proposed 'all employee' bargaining unit and determined that a department manager did not exercise sufficient managerial authority to be excluded from the unit.

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.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer failed to pay a travel allowance required by the collective agreement.

The dispute centered on whether the 'employer's yard' for calculating the travel allowance referred to the local contractor's permanent yard (McFarland yard) or the respondent's temporary yard on the job site.

The Board upheld the grievance, finding that under the 'pick-up' agreement, the respondent was bound to the terms of the local McFarland Agreement, which required calculating the travel allowance from the McFarland yard to equalize competitive positions.