M. Horan

The applicant union brought a related employer application and an unfair labour practice complaint against several corporate respondents and two locals of the Carpenters' Union.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss the unfair labour practice complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case and to strike portions of the related employer application for lack of particulars.

The Board found that the applicant lacked status to challenge the Carpenters' bargaining rights because it did not hold pre-existing bargaining rights for the employees in question, and that it had delayed in bringing the complaint.

The Board struck those portions of the complaint.

However, the Board declined to strike the related employer application, finding the pleadings sufficiently particularized given the nature of such applications where facts lie within the exclusive knowledge of the respondents.

The complainants filed a work assignment dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent union argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the pre-conditions for a complaint were not met.

The Board found that the respondent union had filed a grievance demanding that the subcontractor assign the disputed work to its members rather than to members of another union.

Consequently, the Board ruled that the union had required an employer to assign work to its members, satisfying the pre-conditions of section 91(1), and affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

In the interim, the intervenor employer sought a direction from the Board relieving it of its obligation to bargain with the union until the termination application was resolved, or guidance on the scope of its bargaining obligation.

The Board declined to issue the requested directions, noting that a termination application does not automatically relieve an employer of its duty to bargain, and that it would be premature to address the issue in the absence of a specific unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant, Cambridge Employees' Association, applied for certification to represent the respondent's employees.

The intervener, another trade union, also applied for certification and argued that the applicant lacked trade union status or was barred from certification under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act due to employer support.

The Board found that the applicant had taken the necessary steps to constitute itself as a trade union.

The Board also found insufficient evidence to support the intervener's claim of employer support, despite the applicant's president having obtained the name of their legal counsel from the respondent's general manager.

The intervener's application was dismissed for lack of sufficient membership evidence, and a certificate was issued to the applicant.