E.A. Ford

The applicant applied for accreditation under section 125 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued an interim decision confirming a unanimous oral ruling establishing general guidelines for determining the composition of the employer unit and the related lists of employers and employees.

The Board set out criteria for deciding whether the respondent held bargaining rights in the sewers and watermains sector in Board area #8 and the scope of the work encompassed by the unit of employers.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for employers in the sewers and watermains sector.

The respondent and interveners challenged the applicant's status, arguing it was not a properly constituted employers' organization under the Labour Relations Act due to alleged defects in its by-laws and their enactment.

The Board found that the applicant was an employers' organization within the meaning of the Act and that its by-laws were properly enacted.

The Board held that imposing additional pre-conditions for accreditation based on internal by-law provisions would exceed its jurisdiction, and concluded the applicant was a properly constituted organization.

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

An employees' association sought to intervene but failed to provide written evidence that employees had applied for membership, leading the Board to deny it status.

The respondent employer argued the application should be barred because the applicant had recently withdrawn a similar application.

The Board declined to impose a time bar, finding no evidence that the withdrawal was an attempt to avoid a representation vote defeat.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and referred the matter to a Board Officer to inquire into the list and composition of the unit.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging the employer violated the collective agreement regarding commuting and travel allowances.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union was estopped from bringing the grievance due to a long-standing past practice of paying mileage rather than board allowance for Timmins area residents on local jobs.

The Board applied the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, finding that the union had accepted this practice during the renegotiation of the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

The complainant union filed a work assignment complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act after its members were removed from a job site.

The respondent union challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that no demand was ever made to the employer to assign work to members of a particular union.

The Board agreed, finding that the cancellation of the subcontractor's contract did not constitute a demand for work assignment within the meaning of section 91.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer failed to apply the province-wide excavation collective agreement.

At the hearing, the employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that it was bound by a different 'road builders' agreement and that other employers and unions bound by that agreement were entitled to notice of the proceedings because the Board's interpretation might affect them commercially.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that strangers to a collective agreement are not entitled as of right to intervene in a section 112a proceeding, and declined to exercise its discretion to add them, as doing so would needlessly encumber the grievance process.