Lorne A. Richmond

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of paramedics employed by the municipality.

The intervenor union claimed it already held bargaining rights for these employees under its existing collective agreement for 'outside' workers, which would render the application untimely.

The Board found that the paramedics fell within the 'technical personnel' exclusion in the intervenor's collective agreement, as their core duties involved performing controlled medical acts.

The Board also determined that an all-paramedic bargaining unit was appropriate.

The application was found timely, and the parties were directed to file submissions regarding a post-vote complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural decision setting hearing dates and establishing a protocol for the delivery of written statements and documents regarding a pension issue.

The parties were directed to file statements of facts and lists of documents, with a process for objections and the preparation of a joint document book.

In an application for certification where the BACU sought to displace the IUBAC as the bargaining agent for bricklayers employed by Kvaerner Jaddco, the Board addressed several preliminary issues.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit, permitted the withdrawal of a related grievance, and dismissed allegations regarding the order of names on the ballot and forced membership card signing.

However, the Board found that due to a series of administrative and logistical errors by the Board and the parties, employees did not receive adequate notice of the initial representation vote.

Consequently, the Board ordered a second representation vote to be held.

The applicants alleged that the responding parties violated various sections of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to reimburse a local union for legal costs incurred during an organizing drive.

The responding parties brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the duty of fair representation under sections 74 and 167(1) did not apply to internal union affairs or the administration of an organizing trust fund.

The Board also found no basis for the allegations of intimidation, coercion, or breach of a prior settlement agreement.

The motion was granted and the application was dismissed.

The Board determined the status of the Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada (BACU) following a dispute with the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (IUBAC).

The IUBAC had purported to revoke the charters of the Ontario Provincial Council (OPC) and several locals.

The BACU claimed it was the transformed OPC or its successor.

The Board found that the BACU could not be the successor to the OPC because the revocation of charters was deemed ineffective under section 147(5) of the Labour Relations Act once a complaint was filed.

Furthermore, the BACU did not meet the statutory definition of an Employee Bargaining Agency.

However, the Board concluded that the BACU and its locals (except Locals 6, 7, and 25) had taken the necessary steps to constitute themselves as independent trade unions within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the responding employer's assignment of removing and replacing loose concrete blocks over boilers at a nuclear power plant to the responding union (Boilermakers).

The applicant claimed the work should have been assigned to its members, while an intervenor union argued for a composite crew.

After reviewing the employer's past practice evidence, the Board declined to change the assignment and confirmed the work was properly assigned to the Boilermakers.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervenor union objected to the representation vote, arguing that it did not receive proper notice and that its name was incorrectly listed on the ballot.

The Board dismissed the notice argument but agreed that the ballot's use of a truncated name for the intervenor likely confused voters, as the intervenor consistently used a distinct name to identify itself.

Finding that the vote results would not likely reveal the true wishes of the employees, the Board ordered a second representation vote pursuant to section 111(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant union applied under section 43 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The union alleged that collective bargaining had been unsuccessful due to the employer's refusal to negotiate contracting, subcontracting, and job security provisions.

The Board found that bargaining had been slowed by confusion over the scope of the union's bargaining rights, but that the employer had made a verbal proposal on the issues.

The Board concluded that it did not appear that the process of collective bargaining had been unsuccessful and dismissed the application.

The applicants requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow the Board to entertain a request for reconsideration of a prior decision that denied certain union locals standing to intervene.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding that no formal request for reconsideration had actually been filed, no extension of time had been granted, and any such request made at this late stage of the proceedings would be untimely.

The Board directed that the hearing on the merits proceed.

The union applied for substantive interim relief to prevent the responding limousine companies from transferring a service agreement to a third party, pending the resolution of an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board held that following the Bill 31 amendments to the Labour Relations Act, it no longer has the jurisdiction to grant substantive interim relief under either its home statute or the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board's interim relief powers are now strictly limited to procedural matters.

The application for interim relief was dismissed.

The IBEW filed applications alleging unfair labour practices, seeking a sale of business and related employer declaration, and referring a grievance to arbitration against GDC, GFP, Wabi, and Unicorn.

The Board found that Minutes of Settlement previously entered into by GDC created a binding obligation to sign the IBEW Principal Agreement, allowing the section 96(7) complaint.

However, the Board dismissed the remaining applications, finding that GDC's decision to cease operating as a general contractor was due to financial difficulties, not anti-union animus.

The Board also found no sale of a business to the other entities and declined to make a related employer declaration, as there was no common control and it would inappropriately extend bargaining rights.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent International Union.

The incumbent union and the General Presidents' Maintenance Committee for Canada (GPMC) intervened, arguing that a valid collective agreement already covered the employees.

The Board examined several documents and agreements to determine if a valid collective agreement existed between the responding party employer and the International Union.

The Board found that while the GPMC lacked actual authority to sign the adherence agreement on behalf of the International Union, it possessed ostensible authority to do so.

Furthermore, the Board determined that recent amendments to section 44 of the Labour Relations Act applied retroactively, meaning employee ratification was not required.

Consequently, a valid collective agreement existed, giving the intervenors status, and the Board directed the counting of the displacement ballots.

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.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (IU) had just cause to revoke the charters of the Ontario Provincial Conference (OPC) and several affiliated local unions.

The dispute arose after the OPC negotiated the removal of the IU dues check-off clause from the provincial ICI collective agreements and returned collected dues to its members, as part of a broader push for Canadian autonomy.

The Board found that while the IU had cause to be concerned and to investigate, it did not have just cause to revoke the charters without affording the OPC and the locals a full opportunity to explain and defend their actions.

The Board concluded that the IU acted unreasonably and without just cause under sections 147 and 149 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint with the Board after referring the dispute to the Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry and receiving a favourable decision.

Bricklayers' Local 1 did not participate in the Plan proceedings and argued it was not bound by the Plan.

The Board found that Local 1 was not bound by the Plan, as it had not agreed to it and the International Union had no authority to bind it.

The Board declined to inquire into the jurisdictional dispute complaint, finding that the employer and Cement Masons had abused the Board's processes by circumventing an agreement to have the Board determine the dispute.

The applicant union brought multiple applications and grievance referrals against the responding corporate employer and its principal for failing to abide by collective agreements, including failing to make remittances and hiring non-union members.

The Board found that the corporate employer and its principal, acting on behalf of the employer, violated sections 70 and 72 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the responding parties to jointly and severally pay damages of $40,374.72, deposit cash bonds with trust funds, and produce relevant documents.

The applicants, members of Local 598, filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the Bricklayers union.

The Bricklayers argued the application must fail because the applicants were not 'employees in the bargaining unit' under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that on the date of the application, the applicants were performing work under the Local 598 collective agreement, not the Bricklayers' collective agreement.

Applying the principles from April Waterproofing, the Board concluded the applicants were not employees in the Bricklayers' bargaining unit and dismissed the termination application.

The applicant local unions applied under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent international union violated section 150 by refusing to recognize the locals' right to appoint trustees to the Canadian pension plan.

The Board found that the Canadian Plan was a separate plan from the American Plan and constituted an 'employment benefit plan' under section 150.

The Board declared that the international union violated section 150 by refusing to accept the right of the applicant local unions to appoint trustees, and determined that the locals were entitled to appoint 58.33% of the trustees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held a consultation regarding a jurisdictional dispute over a work assignment between the Bricklayers and the Operative Plasterers.

The employer had a pre-existing collective agreement with the Bricklayers but voluntarily recognized the Operative Plasterers for the project in question.

The Board determined that the work ought to have been assigned to the Bricklayers, given their pre-existing bargaining rights covering the work, compared to the recently recognized Operative Plasterers.

The related unfair labour practice and construction industry grievance applications were adjourned sine die.

The applicants alleged that the international union breached section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by continuing to exercise de facto supervision and control over the local union after the initial 12-month trusteeship period had expired without an extension from the Board.

The Board dismissed the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board held that under section 89(2), a trusteeship automatically terminates after 12 months unless extended by the Board, and the Board has no jurisdiction under that section to inquire into or regulate de facto control exercised without a legally imposed trusteeship.