E. M. Mitchell

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party violated the collective agreement by hiring non-union employees.

The responding party failed to attend the hearing.

The Board found that the responding party knowingly and repeatedly violated the hiring provisions of the collective agreement despite warnings from the union.

The Board ordered the responding party to comply with the agreement and pay $25,000 in damages pursuant to the collective agreement, plus $749 in disbursements.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the responding employer unlawfully discharged an employee for exercising rights under the Labour Relations Act.

The employer conceded liability for breaching section 76 of the Act.

The Board ordered the employee's reinstatement, subject to the employer's seasonal workforce size.

The Board also awarded damages for lost wages and benefits, finding the employee had reasonably mitigated his damages and the union's delay in filing was not unreasonable.

Notably, the Board held that workers' compensation benefits received by the employee during the damages period must be deducted from the award, applying the Supreme Court of Canada's reasoning in Sylvester v. British Columbia.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer laid off two employees and solicited anti-union petitions in response to an organizing campaign.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer violated sections 65 and 67 of the Labour Relations Act by laying off the employees for their union activity and by interfering in the selection of a trade union.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were unlikely to be ascertained due to the employer's unlawful conduct, the Board certified the union under section 9.2 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement of the laid-off employees with compensation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers.

The intervener trade union, which already represented bricklayers' assistants employed by one of the related respondent employers, challenged the applicant's proposed bargaining unit description, arguing it improperly carved out a portion of the applicant's designated trade contrary to the province-wide bargaining scheme.

The Board held that the intervener had status to intervene.

The Board further held that it had jurisdiction under the Labour Relations Act to describe a bargaining unit that excludes a portion of a designated trade where those employees are already represented by another trade union, and that it was appropriate to do so in this case to preserve existing bargaining rights and avoid disenfranchising unrepresented employees.

The Labourers, Local 506 and the Bricklayers, Local 1 both brought applications under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act seeking declarations that several corporate entities constituted a common employer.

The Board found that the preconditions for a section 1(4) declaration were met for seven of the respondents.

However, the Board dismissed the Bricklayers' application due to unreasonable delay, as the union knew or ought to have known of the related employers for four years without asserting its bargaining rights.

The Board granted the Labourers' application, declaring the seven entities a common employer with respect to the Labourers, to prevent undue fragmentation and create a viable bargaining unit.