Joe Carrier

During an application for certification, the objectors argued that the applicant union's charges of employer misconduct and its request for certification without a vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act were not filed promptly as required by Rule 72.

The Board held that the union's obligation to file particulars regarding the voluntariness of employee petitions arose only when it was officially notified of the petitions by the Board, and the union acted promptly thereafter.

The Board also declined to strike the section 8 claim, noting that its timing did not cause any adjournment, prejudice, or delay.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act against multiple corporate respondents.

At the hearing, the Board added several new respondents as requested by the applicant.

The Board granted an adjournment requested by some respondents and directed the applicant to provide full written particulars of the material facts and relief claimed against the newly added parties.

The Board noted that procedural fairness requires an applicant to provide written particulars rather than relying on verbal assertions.

A pre-hearing conference and hearing dates were scheduled.

The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to take her grievance to arbitration.

The grievance arose after the employer removed her from a newly awarded position, determining that the position should not have been posted as another employee was already performing the work in that classification.

The Board found that the union directed its mind to the merits of the grievance and made a reasoned decision based on established practice and the collective agreement.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a declaration under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents, Capricorn Acoustics & Drywall Ltd. and J & J Drywall, were bound by the same provincial agreement.

The respondents conceded they carried on related activities under common control.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration.

The Board found that the union had delayed in bringing the application, there was no evidence that work had been transferred from the unionized entity to the non-union entity to erode bargaining rights, and the union was attempting to use section 1(4) to acquire bargaining rights for an established non-union workforce without going through the certification process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union challenged the voluntariness of the petition, alleging management involvement because the applicant was the sister of a supervisor.

The Board found that the applicant was not perceived as an agent of management and that the petition was voluntary.

A representation vote was ordered.