S. C. Bernardo

The employer and the incumbent union filed a joint application for early termination of their collective agreement.

A rival union, the CAW, sought to intervene, objecting to the termination without an open period as it was conducting an organizing campaign.

The applicants argued the CAW's intervention was improperly served and that it had not proven it represented employees.

The Board allowed the intervention, finding the CAW had a real interest and had presented satisfactory evidence of representation.

To preserve employees' statutory rights to change their bargaining agent, the Board granted the early termination but imposed a three-month open period.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The intervenor trade union requested reconsideration of the Board's decision denying it intervenor status in a certification application.

The intervenor argued it was denied natural justice and that the Board's ruling was contrary to previous jurisprudence regarding notice.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the intervenor raised no new arguments that could not have been made at the original hearing, and that the right to file a grievance under its collective agreement would not be affected by the Board's determination of the employee list in the certification application.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The intervenor union sought to intervene six months after the application date, alleging its collective agreement covered the work.

The Board denied the intervention due to delay, noting the application was posted at the jobsite.

The employer also raised the intervenor's collective agreement as a bar to the application six months late.

Despite the applicant's argument that the delay prejudiced its ability to reapply during the open period, the Board allowed the employer to raise the collective agreement bar, finding it could not ignore an existing agreement that might cover the classifications of work performed.

The matter was deferred for further submissions on whether the specific work fell within the agreement's classifications.

The applicant City applied for declarations that the responding trade unions no longer represent its construction industry employees, asserting it is a non-construction employer under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding unions raised a constitutional challenge to sections 127.1 and 127.2 of the Act under the Charter.

The applicant sought to have the constitutional challenge determined on a preliminary basis, either by a motion to strike or following evidence on the constitutional issue alone.

The Board declined to hear the constitutional challenge as a preliminary matter, finding it premature as the Charter question would be moot if the applicant failed to establish it was a non-construction employer.

The Board directed that the constitutional issue be heard at the end of the proceedings.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Boilermakers and the Labourers regarding demolition work, the Labourers sought to adduce viva voce evidence on a preliminary basis to challenge the Board's earlier ruling on the parameters of admissible past practice evidence.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that it has inherent jurisdiction to determine the relevance of evidence without first hearing it, and that evidence regarding the demolition of structures other than field-erected, steam-generating boilers in an operating environment is irrelevant to the specific work in dispute.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer engaged non-union personnel to perform demolition work.

The intervener union argued the grievance was essentially a jurisdictional dispute and requested deferral.

The Board agreed that the issues raised constituted a jurisdictional dispute best dealt with under section 91 of the Act.

The Board adjourned the grievance for 21 days to allow the filing of a jurisdictional dispute complaint.

The applicant employers' organization sought accreditation as the exclusive bargaining agent for employers in the sewers and watermains sector.

The Board previously issued certificates of accreditation despite unresolved questions regarding whether two specific employers should be included in the unit, finding that the applicant met the double majority test under s. 127(2) of the Labour Relations Act regardless of the outcome.

The Board issued reasons for this jurisdictional finding, drawing an analogy to certification cases where unresolved employee status issues do not affect the union's right to certification.

The parties subsequently agreed on the status of the two employers, and the Board finalized the lists of employers.

The Board also varied the accreditation orders and certificates on consent to correct an error and clarify potential ambiguity.

The Electrical Contractors' Association of Ottawa applied for accreditation as the bargaining agent for employers in the residential sector of the construction industry for whom the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 586 holds bargaining rights in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, the United Counties of Prescott and Russell, and the County of Lanark.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant to be a properly constituted employers' organization and the respondent to be a trade union.

The Board determined the appropriate unit of employers and found that the applicant represented a majority of the employers in the unit, who in turn employed a majority of the employees.

The Board granted the application and issued a certificate of accreditation.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging that the respondent municipality violated the subcontracting clause of the provincial agreement by contracting electrical work to a non-union contractor.

The respondent argued it was acting as an owner, not an employer in the construction industry, and that it did not 'sublet' the work.

The Board found that the respondent was an employer in the construction industry and bound by the provincial agreement.

However, the Board dismissed the grievance, concluding that the respondent did not 'sublet' the work within the meaning of the agreement because it was not under a prior contractual obligation to perform the work.

The applicant, Local 594, sought a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent, Local 586, had not acquired its bargaining rights following a merger ordered by the International President of the IBEW.

Local 594 argued that a merger could not be effected without a vote of its members.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that the merger was carried out in accordance with the union's constitution and that the Board's role under section 62 is to ensure constitutional provisions were followed, not to require a membership vote.

A dissenting member would have required a representation vote for non-ICI sector bargaining rights.

The applicant trade union filed four applications for certification in the construction industry.

The Board found that the applicant already held bargaining rights for all the employees in the requested bargaining units under existing provincial agreements.

Because there were no unrepresented employees in any of the bargaining units on the date of application, and the applications were not made during the open periods of the collective agreements, the Board dismissed all four applications.

The applicant union requested that the Board defer hearing the merits of a work assignment complaint until it determined, under section 150 of the Labour Relations Act, which sector of the construction industry the disputed work fell into.

The respondents and intervener opposed the deferral, arguing the sector issue should be decided alongside the merits.

The Board agreed with the applicant, finding that the sector determination was integral to the complaint and could involve other parties with standing.

The Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer to identify parties for the sector determination and directed that the same panel hear both the sector issue and the merits.

The complainants, members of IBEW Local 105, alleged that the respondents violated the Labour Relations Act by performing industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector construction work under a maintenance agreement rather than the provincial agreement.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainants lacked standing because they were not employees in the bargaining unit, had not worked under the agreement, and had not been refused employment.

Consequently, their interests were too remote to establish a violation of the Act.

The applicant applied for accreditation under section 125 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued an interim decision confirming a unanimous oral ruling establishing general guidelines for determining the composition of the employer unit and the related lists of employers and employees.

The Board set out criteria for deciding whether the respondent held bargaining rights in the sewers and watermains sector in Board area #8 and the scope of the work encompassed by the unit of employers.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees challenged the application.

A petition opposing certification and a counter-petition reaffirming support for the union were filed.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the counter-petition.

After reviewing the evidence regarding its origination, preparation, and circulation, the Board found that the counter-petition was signed voluntarily, free from threats, intimidation, or undue influence.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule further hearings on outstanding issues.

The applicant, an accredited employers' organization, applied for relief under section 135 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the corporate respondents violated section 131 by entering into an agreement with the respondent union.

The Board determined that section 135 only applies to unlawful strikes or lock-outs.

Since the employees had returned to work, there was no ongoing strike.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 135 to remedy an alleged violation of section 131 and dismissed the application, noting the applicant could bring a complaint under section 89.

The applicant trade union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against three construction companies.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that section 1(4) violates the guarantee of freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Board dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding that section 1(4) protects rather than infringes freedom of association by preserving existing bargaining rights.

On the merits, the Board applied the Walters Lithographing criteria and found that the three companies carried on associated or related activities under common control or direction.

The Board declared the companies bound by the collective agreement and ordered remedies for unfair labour practices.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer argued the bargaining unit should be limited to the residential sector.

The Board ruled that the unit applied for, relating to the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, was appropriate under s. 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the employee status of several individuals.

The Board also declined to conduct its own inquiry into an allegation of conditional payment for union membership, ruling that the respondent must prove the allegation in the ordinary course.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for employers in the sewers and watermains sector.

The respondent and interveners challenged the applicant's status, arguing it was not a properly constituted employers' organization under the Labour Relations Act due to alleged defects in its by-laws and their enactment.

The Board found that the applicant was an employers' organization within the meaning of the Act and that its by-laws were properly enacted.

The Board held that imposing additional pre-conditions for accreditation based on internal by-law provisions would exceed its jurisdiction, and concluded the applicant was a properly constituted organization.