5 total
Motion to dismiss certification application and impose a bar denied despite union's repeated filings.
The respondent employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the union's application for certification and impose a bar on future applications, arguing that the union had filed six applications for substantially the same group of employees in two months.
The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act to dismiss the application and impose a bar.
The Board found that while the union's slipshod manner of filing and withdrawing applications was not condoned, the mere frequency of the applications in these circumstances did not constitute an abuse of process or warrant depriving employees of their right to trade union representation.
Union may apply for certification in a single geographic board area despite employees working elsewhere.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit in the construction industry encompassing the ICI sector province-wide and Board Area #26 for all other sectors.
The respondent employer argued that because it had employees working in Board Area #6 on the application date, the unit should also include Board Area #6, and that the Board should consider community of interest criteria under section 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board ruled that under section 144(1) of the Act, a trade union is not required to apply for more than one geographic area even if employees are working in multiple areas.
The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit accordingly and authorized a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the list of employees.
Union permitted to amend certification application to contract the proposed bargaining unit.
The applicant trade union applied for certification and subsequently sought to amend its proposed bargaining unit to exclude the industrial, commercial, and institutional sectors.
The respondent employer and objecting employees opposed the amendment, arguing it amounted to gerrymandering and that the applicant, as a council of trade unions, could not apply independently.
The Board held that the applicant was entitled to apply under either section 144(1) or (3) of the Labour Relations Act and permitted the amendment, finding it was merely a contraction of the unit and not gerrymandering.
A Labour Relations Officer was authorized to inquire into the composition of the bargaining unit.
Union certified without representation vote after Board rejects late addition to employee list and upholds membership evidence.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.
The Board reconsidered and varied a portion of its previous decision regarding the intervener's bargaining rights.
On the merits of the certification, the Board refused to allow the respondent to add an employee to the list after multiple previous amendments, noting the information was always in the respondent's control.
The Board also found the applicant's documentary evidence of membership to be unambiguous and reliable.
As the applicant demonstrated membership support of over fifty-five percent, the Board issued certificates to the applicant without a representation vote.
Board denies adjournment in certification application and defines appropriate construction industry bargaining unit.
The applicant union sought certification for construction labourers employed by the respondent.
The respondent and intervener requested an adjournment, arguing the Board needed to interpret an existing collective agreement and address a related employer issue.
The Board denied the adjournment, finding it unnecessary to interpret the existing agreement to determine the appropriate bargaining unit, and noting the related employer issue was not properly before it.
The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and scheduled further hearings to resolve disputes over the list of employees.
