Owen V Gray

The applicant union referred grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent successor employer breached the collective agreement by failing to pay union wages and benefits after a sale of business.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction over non-construction work and that the grievors failed to mitigate their damages by refusing to work for the new non-union company.

The Board held it had jurisdiction under sections 124 and 89 to hear all aspects of the grievances.

The Board further held that the grievors were not required to mitigate their losses by accepting employment on substantially poorer terms, and that the respondent's liability commenced on the date of the sale, not the date of the Board's prior successor rights declaration.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer committed numerous unfair labour practices following an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer engaged in a pervasive campaign of anti-union animus, including unlawful layoffs, constructive discharge, harassment, and unilateral alterations to terms and conditions of employment during the statutory freeze period.

The Board ordered extensive remedial relief, including reinstatement with compensation, restoration of privileges, and union access to employer-convened meetings.

The applicant unions filed pre-hearing displacement applications for certification.

The intervener incumbent union argued the applications were untimely because the Inflation Restraint Act extended the existing collective agreements, thereby closing the 'open period' under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that section 13 of the Inflation Restraint Act extended the collective agreements beyond their normal expiry dates, rendering the applications untimely.

The Board also rejected the argument that this extension violated the freedom of association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer laid off four employees for anti-union reasons and unlawfully continued to bargain with the incumbent union.

The Board found that the layoffs were motivated by anti-union considerations, as they occurred out of seniority order and shortly after the employees supported the applicant.

However, the Board held that the employer's continued bargaining with the incumbent union did not violate the statutory freeze or constitute unlawful interference, adopting the approach that the duty to bargain continues during a displacement application.

The Board declined to certify the applicant without a vote under section 8, preserving the presumption of the incumbent's continuing majority status, but ordered compensation for the laid-off employees and gave the applicant the option of relying on the initial representation vote or requesting a new mailed ballot vote.