R. D. Perkins

The applicant union applied for certification with respect to employees performing janitorial services at the Cleary Auditorium, naming Ambassador Building Maintenance Limited as the respondent employer.

The respondent argued it merely provided a payroll service and was not the true employer.

The Board found that although a contract existed between the respondent and the auditorium, the auditorium actually hired, supervised, and set the working conditions for the employees.

Applying the "true employer" test, the Board concluded that the auditorium, not the respondent, was the true employer.

The application for certification against the respondent was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by failing to employ union members for scaling work and by subcontracting the work to non-union employees.

The work was actually performed by laid-off employees of the project owner (LOC) at the owner's insistence, to satisfy its own union.

Applying the seven-fold criteria for determining an employer-employee relationship, the Board found that LOC, not the respondent, exercised direction and control and was the true employer of the individuals performing the work.

As the respondent did not employ the workers or subcontract the work, the grievance was dismissed.

The union applied for certification for two bargaining units.

The union demonstrated membership support in excess of 55% for both units.

However, a group of employees filed statements of desire (petitions) opposing the certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the employer had held a meeting and posted newspaper clippings suggesting that unionization would lead to layoffs and plant closures.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the petitions did not represent a voluntary change of heart, as employees were motivated by a perceived threat to their job security.

The Board gave no weight to the petitions and granted certification for both bargaining units without a representation vote.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 14 of the Labour Relations Act.

During a protracted strike, the employer continued to pay non-striking employees the rates from its last pre-strike offer.

However, near the end of the six-month strike period, the employer informed the union it would only sign an agreement if the union agreed to a wage reduction or lump sum payment to reimburse the employer for business losses suffered during the strike.

The Board found that this demand, coupled with the employer's failure to unilaterally reduce wages based on economic conditions, was designed for rejection and penalized employees for exercising their right to strike.

The Board concluded the employer was not negotiating with the intention of concluding a collective agreement and directed it to cease and desist from bargaining in bad faith.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a grievance filed by a rival union against a general contractor regarding a subcontracting clause constituted a demand for work assignment.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that the mere filing of a grievance against a general contractor does not amount to requiring an employer to assign particular work to persons in a particular trade union within the meaning of section 81(1).

The Board reviewed the legislative history and jurisprudence, concluding that the general contractor is not the 'employer' making the work assignment in this context.