Frank D'Abbondanza

The applicant union requested the cancellation of a scheduled representation vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board cancelled the vote scheduled for May 22, 2001, and directed the applicant to file written submissions regarding voting arrangements, with the responding party to reply within three days.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133.

At a pre-hearing consultation, the parties agreed to adjourn the grievance referral sine die pending the determination of the related employer/sale of business application.

The intervenor union withdrew from the application but reserved the right to intervene in the grievance proceeding.

The Board issued directions regarding the filing of amended pleadings and the production of documents, and referred the application to the Registrar to be listed for hearing before another panel.

The applicants filed applications under subsection 1(4) and section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133.

On the second day of the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement and agreed that the factual bases for relief existed.

The Board declared the responding parties to be one employer and found a transfer of business had occurred.

The grievance referral was terminated based on the settlement.

The applicant employer referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding unions argued that the Board should exercise its newly enacted discretion under section 133(4) to refuse the referral and defer to the expedited arbitration process established in the parties' collective agreement.

The Board agreed with the unions, finding that the negotiated enforcement mechanism was a comprehensive and effective system of self-regulation tailored to the construction industry.

The Board refused to accept the referral, allowing the matter to proceed to expedited arbitration.

The applicant, Tactix Construction Limited, initially applied for a related employer declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act but later sought to withdraw it.

The Board refused the withdrawal and allowed the respondent union to pursue its own claim for a related employer declaration involving Tactix and four other corporations.

The Board found that the statutory preconditions for a related employer declaration were met for all five corporations.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to declare only four of the corporations (Tactix, Mark/Barry, Stash, and Jilsen) as one employer, dismissing the application with respect to Danand Investments Limited because its common control had ceased in 1985.