Jay Rider

At a case management consultation, the parties agreed to cancel a scheduled hearing date and adjourn several grievance referrals sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The union parties agreed to meet to attempt to settle their dispute, with the assistance of the Board members if necessary.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board granted the request, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The panel remained seized of the matter and offered continued mediation assistance.

The applicants sought to withdraw their application against IBEW Local 586 and MegaTech Electrical.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

Following an unfair labour practice complaint, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to a second vote, but the union reserved the right to challenge the eligibility of two employees hired after the application date on the basis that they were not employed in the 'representative period'.

The Board held that the term 'representative period' is a term of art referable to the application date.

Consequently, the two challenged employees were not entitled to vote in the second representation vote.

The applicant brought a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Pending discussions between the parties, the Board adjourned the matter sine die.

The Board directed that if no party requests to proceed within one year, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the responding parties Beldin and Alverio were bound by the collective agreements between the union and Concept, either as a result of a sale of a business or because they were related employers under common control and direction.

The Board found that the departure of two key individuals from Concept to start their own businesses did not constitute a sale of a business, as Concept continued to operate successfully without them and they did not take Concept's work or customers.

The Board also declined to make a single employer declaration, finding that Concept and the new businesses were not under common control and direction, and the union's bargaining rights with Concept remained intact.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a home builder, alleged that the respondent union called or authorized an unlawful strike by employees of its subcontractors at various construction sites.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that union representatives had instructed employees of one subcontractor, A-1, not to work, constituting an unlawful strike.

However, the Board found insufficient evidence to conclude that the union called or authorized strikes by employees of other subcontractors, as there was no direct evidence of communication between the union and those employees.

A cease and desist order was issued regarding the A-1 employees.

The applicant union was certified to represent employees of a personnel business working at a social service agency.

The agency terminated its contract with the personnel business and directly hired all the employees, maintaining the same operations, location, and clientele.

The union argued this constituted a sale of a business under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the personnel business's essential asset was its specialized workforce, and the transfer of this workforce to the agency constituted a sale of a part of a business.

Consequently, the union's bargaining rights continued with the agency as the successor employer.