Jim Thomson

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer engaged non-union personnel to perform demolition work.

The intervener union argued the grievance was essentially a jurisdictional dispute and requested deferral.

The Board agreed that the issues raised constituted a jurisdictional dispute best dealt with under section 91 of the Act.

The Board adjourned the grievance for 21 days to allow the filing of a jurisdictional dispute complaint.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking a determination that there was an established local area work practice of its members performing the cutting and placing of lagging within its geographic jurisdiction.

The Board acted as the committee provided for under the provincial agreement to determine the work practice.

After reviewing the evidence of lagging work on industrial and commercial construction sites, the Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that contractors bound to the agreement had recognized the union's claim to the work.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer engaged in an unlawful lockout and violated several provisions of the Labour Relations Act by attempting to force employees to work under terms less favourable than their provincial collective agreement.

Facing cost overruns and pressure from the owner, the employer sought to implement a four-day work week with extended hours at straight time, contrary to the collective agreements of several trades.

When the union refused, the employer closed the site on Fridays, effectively reducing the employees' hours.

The Board found that the employer's actions constituted an unlawful lockout designed to compel the union to agree to concessions.

The Board also found that the employer violated section 146(2) of the Act by attempting to negotiate a separate local arrangement inconsistent with the provincial agreement.

The applicants sought a declaration and cease-and-desist order against the respondent union for engaging in site-wide picketing during a lawful province-wide strike in the ICI sector.

The picketing caused employees of other trades, who were not in a legal strike position, to refuse to cross the picket lines, effectively halting all construction activity in the Sarnia area.

The Board found that while the respondent was engaged in a lawful strike, picketing directed at employees of employers unconnected to the dispute (other than by geography) constituted secondary picketing that caused an unlawful strike.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease picketing at common sites unless reserved gates were established or struck work was being performed.