Lorne A. Richmond

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional complaint regarding the assignment of work for the installation of a local area network computer system at a nuclear generating station.

The employer had assigned the work to the responding union's members, who were maintenance workers, rather than the applicant's members, who were construction electricians.

The Board determined that the work constituted construction rather than maintenance, and that the applicant's members possessed the requisite skill and ability.

The Board concluded that the correct assignment of the work in dispute was to the applicant union.

Thomson Newspapers objected to a Review Officer's Order finding it to be the employer for the purposes of pay equity of employees at the Oshawa Times.

The Tribunal reviewed the relationship between the two entities and concluded that, while the publisher of the Oshawa Times controlled the operation of the newspaper, he did so as an employee of Thomson.

As such he was obliged to carry out Thomson's corporate goals and objectives.

Overriding financial control rested with Thomson as did ultimate authority for compensation practices.

The Tribunal affirmed the Review Officer's order and found Thomson to be the employer.

The applicants, two construction trade unions, applied for certification to represent standard craft units of employees of the City of St. Thomas.

The City and the intervenor union, CUPE, argued the applications were untimely because a current collective agreement between the City and CUPE covered the employees in question.

The applicants contended that the CUPE agreement did not cover construction trades or, alternatively, that CUPE had abandoned its bargaining rights.

The Board found that the CUPE collective agreement's 'all employee' recognition clause applied to the outside workers performing construction tasks, and there was no evidence of abandonment.

The applications were dismissed as untimely.

The applicant union alleged that the responding school board violated the statutory freeze provision under section 81 of the Labour Relations Act by altering the wages and benefits of occasional teachers following certification.

The school board argued that the teachers in question were probationary, not occasional, and thus not covered by the freeze.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the teachers were occasional teachers within the meaning of the Education Act and the collective agreement.

The Board declared that the school board violated the statutory freeze by altering their terms and conditions of employment and ordered full compensation.

The applicant filed an application for termination of the union's bargaining rights, alleging the union obtained its certificate by fraud, and also sought reconsideration of a previously dismissed termination application.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applications on the grounds that they did not disclose a prima facie case, were untimely, and lacked particulars.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, finding no new evidence or policy grounds to justify reopening the matter.

The Board also dismissed the fresh application for termination, holding that the allegations of fraud lacked the necessary particularity under Rule 72 and that the delay of over two years in raising the allegations was unacceptable and prejudicial to the ongoing collective bargaining relationship.

In a jurisdictional dispute over concrete finishing work, the Board ruled on several preliminary objections regarding the admissibility of evidence and the pleading of material facts.

The Board held that the Cement Masons could not lead evidence of area practice because they failed to include job lists in their pre-hearing brief, as required by Practice Note #15.

The Board also restricted area practice evidence to the ICI sector but allowed evidence of province-wide employer practice.

The Board refused to restrict evidence of employer practice based on the specific bargaining relationships of the employers.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined whether certain individuals should be counted as employees in the proposed bargaining unit of electricians.

The Board found that an employee attending a training program on the application date was not 'at work' in the unit.

The Board also held that three employees performing electrical work on the employer's own premises, who were not qualified journeymen or apprentice electricians under the Trades Qualification Act, should not be included in the unit because they shared no real community of interest with qualified electricians who could lawfully work on construction sites for clients.

The applicant union applied under section 41 of the Labour Relations Act for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The parties had engaged in extensive bargaining over many months, culminating in a strike.

A major point of impasse was the employer's insistence on a discretionary 'pay for performance' wage system, which the union rejected in favour of a wage grid.

The Board found that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful and that the parties were in a 'logjam' from which they were unlikely to extricate themselves.

Without attributing fault, the Board exercised its discretion under section 41(2)(d) to direct the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The complainant filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of pneumatic instrumentation work.

During the hearing, the respondent union brought several motions.

The Board dismissed motions alleging the panel was compromised and that the issues were res judicata.

However, the Board granted the respondent's motion to prevent the complainant from amending its complaint to seek a remedy affecting electronic instrumentation work.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act because no demand had been made for the electronic work, and alternatively, the amendment request was untimely and would fundamentally alter the case.

The applicants filed an unfair labour practice complaint and referred two grievances to arbitration, alleging the respondents failed to abide by work jurisdiction determinations and changed work methods to avoid assigning work to the applicants.

The respondents and intervener argued the matters were essentially jurisdictional disputes that should be deferred or dismissed.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion to defer the unfair labour practice complaint and the mark-up grievance, finding they raised issues beyond mere work assignment, but adjourned the work assignment grievance.

The Board also granted the applicants leave to amend their complaint and granted the intervener full standing in the proceedings.

Two unions filed competing applications for certification with respect to overlapping but non-congruent bargaining units of employees of the respondent in the construction industry.

The Board considered how to exercise its discretion under section 103(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that a representation vote involving the overlapping units could lead to contradictory results and fail to ascertain the true wishes of the employees, the Board directed the second applicant to either amend its proposed bargaining unit to match the first applicant's unit or have its application deferred until the final disposition of the first application.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer failed to file a response and made a last-minute telephone request for an adjournment on the morning of the hearing without notifying the applicant.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting the statutory requirement for expeditious resolution of such applications.

Proceeding on the merits, the Board found the respondent had failed to make reasonable or expeditious efforts to conclude a collective agreement and directed that the first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The applicants alleged a sale of a business from Ably to Turner and sought a related employer declaration.

Ably, a concrete floor installation business, ceased operations shortly after the union acquired bargaining rights.

The four partners of Ably were subsequently hired by Turner, a competitor.

The Board found that the skills, contacts, and reputation of the four partners constituted the assets of Ably, and their hiring by Turner amounted to a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

Turner was declared bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The related employer application was dismissed.

The Board also found Ably violated several sections of the Act, while complaints against Turner were dismissed as premature.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance and applied for a related employer or sale of business declaration against the respondents.

The Board found that the original company and the newly incorporated company were associated or related employers under common control and direction, as the owner created the new company to avoid liabilities while continuing the same concrete forming business.

The Board declared them one employer bound by the collective agreement.

The sale of business application was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Board upheld the grievance, finding the respondents violated the collective agreement by employing non-union members and failing to remit required contributions, and ordered the payment of $12,690.35.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 filed cross-complaints alleging violations of sections 67 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The complaints arose from a dispute over the inclusion of certain equipment operator classifications in the respective unions' wage schedules during the negotiation of a landscaping collective agreement.

Both unions brought preliminary motions to dismiss the other's complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed both complaints, finding that neither union had established a violation of section 70, and that the allegations under section 67 were essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignments disguised as an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board held that such disputes should be resolved through the jurisdictional dispute procedures under the Act.

The applicant union referred a grievance alleging non-compliance with the collective agreement and requested a determination under section 150 of the Labour Relations Act as to whether the construction of a retirement home fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector or the residential sector.

The Board examined the end use and work characteristics of the facility, noting the degree of control exercised by the administrator over the residents and the provision of services akin to an institution rather than a traditional residence.

The Board concluded that the construction of the retirement home fell within the ICI sector.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work by a subcontractor.

The respondent union had initially filed a grievance demanding the work, but later withdrew it.

The respondent union then brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction or should decline to inquire into the complaint since there was no longer a demand to change the work assignment.

The Board held that, assuming it had jurisdiction, it was appropriate to exercise its discretion not to inquire further into the complaint because the underlying dispute had disappeared with the withdrawal of the grievance.

The complaint was dismissed.

Following a decision finding the respondents liable for violations of the Labour Relations Act, the respondents requested a re-attendance to address the impact of an Employment Standards award on the Board's compensation order, and to amend the wording of the Notice to Employees.

The Board found the request regarding compensation premature, as the parties had not yet attempted to resolve the quantum of damages themselves.

The Board agreed to amend the Notice to Employees to accurately reflect the specific remedy granted in the decision.

The union filed complaints alleging that the employer failed to bargain in good faith, interfered with the union's representation rights, and engaged in an unlawful lock-out by transferring work to a related, unorganized entity.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by failing to send an informed committee to negotiations, failing to disclose its intention to move work, bargaining directly with employees, and locking out employees to undermine the union.

The Board ordered the employer to cease and desist, return the transferred work, compensate employees for lost wages, and provide the union with employee addresses.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of electricians.

The respondent employer objected, arguing that the union's provincial collective agreement discriminated on the basis of age by providing preferential treatment to older workers, contrary to the Human Rights Code and section 13 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board denied the Ontario Human Rights Commission intervener status.

The Board found that the impugned provisions, which provided job security and preferred access to less physically demanding jobs for older members, did not constitute prohibited discrimination but were reasonable accommodations.

The Board also resolved a dispute over an employee's inclusion in the bargaining unit and ultimately granted the certification.