Ray Werry

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging that the responding party employer improperly laid off the grievor, who was the appointed shop steward, and that the layoff was a reprisal for his union activities.

The union argued that the collective agreement provided for a shop steward with super-seniority across all of the employer's job sites.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement only provided for job stewards on specific sites, not a shop steward with company-wide super-seniority.

The Board also found no evidence that the layoff was a reprisal, concluding it was a legitimate workforce reduction.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding party, a waste management company.

The responding party raised a preliminary objection, arguing that its business of transporting waste from Ontario to the United States constituted an extra-provincial undertaking under section 92(10)(a) of the British North America Act, placing it under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that the responding party operated as a common carrier whose primary function was the regular and continuous transportation of waste across the border.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the business was a federal undertaking and dismissed the applications for lack of constitutional jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement agreement to reinstate the applicant and refer the matter to arbitration.

The applicant subsequently changed his mind and sought to proceed before the Board.

The responding employer brought a motion requesting the Board decline to inquire into the complaint based on the settlement.

The Board granted the motion, finding no good reason to permit the applicant to resile from the freely entered settlement agreement, and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration.

The applicants, two construction trade unions, applied for certification to represent standard craft units of employees of the City of St. Thomas.

The City and the intervenor union, CUPE, argued the applications were untimely because a current collective agreement between the City and CUPE covered the employees in question.

The applicants contended that the CUPE agreement did not cover construction trades or, alternatively, that CUPE had abandoned its bargaining rights.

The Board found that the CUPE collective agreement's 'all employee' recognition clause applied to the outside workers performing construction tasks, and there was no evidence of abandonment.

The applications were dismissed as untimely.