Lorne A. Richmond

The applicant, a union member, filed an application under section 92 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a copy of the union's audited financial statements for 1996 and a breakdown of specific expenses.

The union had provided unaudited financial statements with a Review Engagement Report, arguing this was sufficient.

The Board held that a review engagement does not constitute an audit, as it lacks the systematic verification of receipts and vouchers required by the Act.

The Board also ordered the union to provide the requested breakdown of expenses, noting the strained relationship between the parties and the minimal effort required.

The union was directed to file and provide the audited statements and breakdown by January 1, 1998.

The applicants brought a motion requesting that the Vice-Chair disqualify himself from hearing their unfair labour practice complaints, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicants argued that the Vice-Chair's extensive involvement in related proceedings and his previous decisions demonstrated a predisposition against their interests.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the motion, finding that the test for bias is objective and that the applicants failed to establish any actual or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board noted that an adjudicator's familiarity with the parties and the industry is appropriate for an administrative tribunal and does not, by itself, constitute bias.

The parent international union imposed a trusteeship on Local 1072, a 'shop local' representing manufacturing employees.

The applicants challenged the trusteeship under section 149 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (Bill 80), which requires just cause for such actions.

The parent union argued that section 149 only applies to 'construction trade unions' as defined in section 126, and that Local 1072 did not meet this definition.

The Board agreed, finding that Local 1072's practices and collective agreements resembled those of an industrial union rather than a construction union.

Consequently, Local 1072 was not a construction union, and the Bill 80 protections did not apply.

In an application for certification, the employer and objecting employees challenged the applicant's status as a trade union and the validity of its membership evidence.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, despite the absence of original charters from 1911.

The Board also dismissed a request to reconsider its earlier decision directing a representation vote, holding that the membership evidence was sufficient to establish an appearance of 40 percent support.

Finally, the Board permitted the union to raise a post-vote challenge to the employment status of two individuals, and directed further submissions on the remaining voter eligibility disputes.

The employer, Ecodyne Limited, filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of tending and clean-up work on a cooling tower erection project in Sault Ste.

Marie.

The employer had assigned the work to members of the Carpenters' union, but the Labourers' union claimed the work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the Canada Millwrights factors, finding that while economy and efficiency favoured the employer's preference for the Carpenters, the core work jurisdiction in the collective agreement and the local area practice favoured the Labourers.

The Board declared that the work should have been assigned to the Labourers.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that economy and efficiency should prevail.

The applicant union filed a construction grievance seeking damages for the respondent employer's failure to assign plaster removal work to its members, following a successful jurisdictional dispute.

The employer argued that the collective agreement precluded damages and that the assignment was not unreasonable.

The Board found that while the collective agreement did not expressly preclude damages in this specific scenario, damages for an incorrect work assignment should only be awarded if the employer acted unreasonably.

Applying the Robertson Yates test, the Board concluded that the employer's assignment of the work to the painters was not unreasonable given the circumstances, including the urgency of the project and the ancillary nature of the work.

The application for damages was dismissed.

The applicant union brought unfair labour practice and contempt applications against the respondents, including a Minister of the Crown.

During the proceedings, the Vice-Chair disclosed that all Board Vice-Chairs had received confidential information regarding the selection process for the recent removal of four Vice-Chairs, an issue central to the applicant's allegations of political interference and lack of institutional independence.

The respondents moved for recusal.

The Board held that, given the high standard of natural justice applicable to its adjudicative functions, the disclosure of this highly relevant but undisclosed information raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The proceedings were stayed.

The applicants sought interim orders staying the implementation of a Memorandum of Settlement respecting Generation Projects, alleging that the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers had improperly negotiated the agreement to the detriment of Local 1788 members.

The Board first determined that while it lacked jurisdiction to grant substantive interim relief under section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, it possessed such jurisdiction under section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

However, the Board dismissed the application on its merits, finding that the alleged harm was speculative and personal, and that the applicants had engaged in undue delay in seeking relief.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that the responding parties breached section 79 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to conduct an employee ratification vote for a memorandum of settlement in the construction industry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that section 44 of the Act explicitly exempts the construction industry from mandatory employee ratification votes.

The Board held that a trade union in the construction industry is free to choose a ratification process that does not include a vote of employees, such as a vote of accredited delegates.

The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging bad faith bargaining.

The employer applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights for security guards under the transitional provisions of Bill 7, alleging a conflict of interest because the union also represented cleaners at the same sites.

The Board dismissed the employer's application, finding no conflict of interest as the guards exercised minimal monitorial authority over the cleaners.

The Board granted the union's applications, finding that the employer breached the duty to bargain in good faith by secretly contracting out the security services while pretending to negotiate the issue, and by subsequently refusing to recognize the union's bargaining authority.

The Board directed that the first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The applicant employer brought an application under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act to resolve a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of instrumentation work.

Historically, pneumatic instrumentation was assigned to the I.A.M. and electronic instrumentation to the I.B.E.W. Due to technological changes, the employer assigned pneumatic work to the I.B.E.W. to improve efficiency, which the I.A.M. grieved.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the application and concluded that the existing demarcation line was irrational.

The Board ordered that jurisdiction over pneumatic instrumentation be shared on an interim basis.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the ICI Provincial Agreement, alleging that the responding employer improperly assigned construction work as maintenance work.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance, arguing that the union had already submitted the same dispute to the alternative dispute resolution mechanism under the General Presidents' Agreement (GPA), which resulted in a final and binding decision.

The Board upheld the preliminary motion, finding that the union had initiated the GPA grievance process and fully participated in it.

The Board concluded that it would be unfair to allow the union to re-litigate the issue after receiving an unfavourable decision from the GPA panel, and terminated the proceeding.

The applicant international union applied to extend its trusteeship over the respondent local union for a further 12 months under s. 89(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Pending the hearing of the main application, the applicant requested an interim extension of the trusteeship.

The Board declined to grant the interim extension, noting the delay in bringing the application, the lack of assurances regarding upcoming elections, and the inherent prejudice to those opposing the extension.

The Board directed that notice be given to the local union members and listed the matter for hearing alongside related unfair labour practice complaints.

The applicant local union alleged that its parent international union violated section 147 of the Labour Relations Act by altering its jurisdiction without just cause.

The parent union had restricted the local union's jurisdiction to direct employees of the employer, removing its jurisdiction over work performed by contractors, and redistributing that work to other local unions.

The Board held that the parent union had just cause to alter the jurisdiction.

The Board found that the parent union's decision was a fair and reasonable resolution to an ongoing internal jurisdictional dispute, and that returning the local unions to their intended jurisdictional positions would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining without causing serious labour relations problems.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union filed complaints alleging the responding employers violated the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a strike.

The employers objected that the union had not held a valid strike vote under subsection 73.1(2)2.

The union had conducted a single strike vote among employees of all employers bound by the terms of an unaccredited employers' association collective agreement.

The Board held that the voting constituency was improper because the employees did not all face the same prospect of a strike, as individual employers could withdraw from the association bargaining.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant union alleged that the responding employers' association breached a subcontracting clause in their collective agreement.

The clause required the association to subcontract bricklaying only to companies in contractual relations with the applicant or another specific union, provided the two unions formed a 'common Union' by a specified deadline.

The unions formed a certified council of trade unions to meet this requirement.

The Board held that a certified council of trade unions did not constitute a 'common Union' within the meaning of the agreement, as the two unions maintained separate legal and practical existences.

Consequently, the subcontracting clause expired.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of work for the refurbishment of a 115KV powerline.

The employer had assigned the work to the Power Workers' Union.

The Board found that the work constituted transmission systems construction work covered by the applicant's collective agreement.

Considering past practice and economy and efficiency, the Board determined that the work should have been assigned to members of the applicant union and directed the employer to assign any remaining work accordingly.

The applicant union sought a declaration that its bargaining rights bound the responding party, Heritage Green Senior Centre, following the Ministry of Health's takeover and subsequent reallocation of nursing home beds from the revoked license of Saint Elizabeth Nursing Home.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Ministry's operation of the home constituted a Crown undertaking, and the issuance of a new license to Heritage Green, along with the transfer of residents, constituted a transfer of that undertaking.

The Board further held that valid bargaining rights existed and that intermingling of employees had occurred.

The application was allowed, and the collective agreement was declared to apply as of the date of transfer without the need for a representation vote.

The Labourers' International Union filed a complaint concerning a work assignment by Nicholls Radtke Limited regarding the stripping of formwork at a co-generation project.

The employer had assigned the work to the Labourers, which the Carpenters grieved.

The Board determined that, based on the employer's past practice, the original written assignment, and area practice, the assignment to the Labourers was incorrect.

The Board ruled that the Carpenters have jurisdiction over the releasing, removal, and dismantling of formwork where the materials are intended to be re-used for forming purposes.

The applicant union filed a second application for certification after withdrawing its first application due to irregularities in the membership evidence (pre-witnessed cards).

The responding employer argued that the new membership evidence was tainted by the union's prior conduct, including an allegedly fraudulent unfair labour practice complaint and the earlier card irregularities.

The Board found no evidence of impropriety in the collection of the fresh membership evidence and declined to dismiss the application or order a representation vote, distinguishing cases where actual fraud on the Board had occurred.