W. G. Posthumus

The applicant union sought a declaration that there had been a sale of a business from Candesco to Interspace and ECI, or alternatively, that the three entities constituted one employer under the Labour Relations Act.

Candesco, a unionized interior general contractor, went into receivership.

Its former principals started Interspace, a consulting and contract management business, and ECI, a unionized carpentry installation company.

The Board dismissed the sale of business application, finding no transfer of assets, employees, or goodwill.

The Board also dismissed the related employer application, concluding that Interspace and ECI were engaged in different businesses and were not carrying on associated or related activities with Candesco.

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 hire union members and by subcontracting work to a non-union firm.

The employer argued that the collective agreement had expired and that the union's notice to bargain was defective.

The Board found that the parties were bound by the provincial agreement, that the notice to bargain was valid given the parties' subsequent bargaining conduct, and that the employer had violated the hiring and subcontracting provisions.

The Board directed the parties to agree on the amount of damages owing to the union.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held.

The intervener challenged the vote, arguing it lacked proper notice and that the two employees who voted were not performing bargaining unit work.

The Board found that the intervener was the author of its own misfortune regarding notice by walking out of a meeting.

However, the Board agreed that the two employees were not eligible to vote because they were performing clean-up and painting work, not insulation work, on the date of the vote.

The Board set aside the vote and ordered a new representation vote to be held when the respondent employs persons in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the intervener union as the bargaining agent for insulation mechanics employed by the respondent.

The intervener opposed the application, alleging under section 12 of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent employer had unlawfully hired employees to support the applicant and defeat the intervener's bargaining rights.

The Board found no evidence of a collusive arrangement or employer support, dismissing the section 12 allegations.

As the applicant demonstrated sufficient membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote.