Lorne A. Richmond

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

The intervener union raised its existing bargaining rights as a bar to the application.

The Board had to determine whether the respondent employer, which primarily performs soil and rock drilling for consulting engineering firms, was an employer in the construction industry.

The Board found that the respondent's work takes place well prior to the construction process and is not done in connection with an ongoing construction project.

Consequently, the respondent was not engaged in a business in the construction industry, and the application was dismissed.

In a jurisdictional dispute over the application of aluminum cladding or lagging over insulation, the respondent Sheet Metal Workers brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint.

They argued that the work in dispute was sheet metal work, a compulsory certified trade under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act, and could therefore only lawfully be assigned to journeymen or apprentice sheet metal workers.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the Apprenticeship Act does not provide any trade with an exclusive jurisdiction and that trade jurisdictions in the construction industry frequently overlap.

The Board concluded it would be inappropriate to determine the issue without a full hearing on the merits.

The union filed an application alleging an unlawful lock-out.

During the proceedings, the individual respondent refused to produce unredacted application forms, prompting the Board to state a case to the Divisional Court.

The Court found the respondent had no lawful excuse but directed the Board to give her another opportunity to produce the documents.

At the reconvened hearing, the respondent requested an adjournment pending an application for leave to appeal the Court's decision.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding it would cause greater injustice to the applicant.

The respondent was given another opportunity to produce the documents but again refused.

The Board considered consolidated applications regarding representation rights for carpenters employed by a framing subcontractor.

Local 183 sought a single employer declaration and to revoke Local 27's certification, arguing it had a pre-existing collective agreement.

Local 27 argued Local 183's agreement was void for employer support and because it was signed when the employer had only one employee.

The Board held that a voluntary recognition agreement can be valid with a single employee.

It also found no employer support, as the employer signed the agreement to comply with a valid subcontracting clause of the general contractor.

The Board granted the single employer declaration, found Local 183's agreement valid, and revoked Local 27's certification.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union and its Local 1036.

At the initial hearing, the Board dismissed the application on a motion by the respondents, finding that all affiliated local unions named in the provincial collective agreement were necessary parties and had not been properly named or given sufficient notice.

Upon reconsideration, the Board found that all affiliated locals had in fact received actual notice and were represented at the hearing.

Concluding that it was overly technical to deny an amendment to the title of the proceedings, the Board revoked its earlier dismissal, amended the title nunc pro tunc to include all affiliated locals as respondents, and directed that the application be scheduled for a hearing on the merits.

The applicants applied for certification regarding employees of the respondent working on the rehabilitation of the Welland Canal.

The respondent argued that the work was an integral part of a federal undertaking, placing labour relations under federal jurisdiction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Construction Montcalm Inc., holding that construction work, even on a federal undertaking, falls within provincial jurisdiction over labour relations.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to entertain the applications.

In a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act, the parties failed to file the required pre-hearing briefs and documentation as mandated by the Board's Rules of Procedure and Practice Note 15.

The Board expressed its dissatisfaction with the parties' disregard for the procedural rules, noting that such non-compliance wastes the Board's time and resources.

The Board emphasized that moving forward, strict adherence to the rules and practice notes will be expected to ensure the orderly and expeditious resolution of jurisdictional disputes.

The applicant union, Local 27, sought certification for carpenters employed by F.T. Construction Inc. and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer and Local 183.

Local 183 requested reconsideration of Local 27's certification, arguing it held a pre-existing collective agreement with the employer.

The Board found that the collective agreement between Local 183 and the employer's predecessor, Minho Carpentry, was the result of employer coercion and improper support, as employees were forced to join Local 183 to keep their jobs.

Consequently, the Board declared the agreement void under section 48(a) of the Labour Relations Act, held that Local 183 had no bargaining rights, and affirmed Local 27's certification.

The applicant union applied for certification for a unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent.

A group of objecting employees filed a petition opposing the certification.

The Board found that the petition was not a voluntary statement of desire, as it was circulated by an employee during working hours and signed by a foreman who directed another employee to sign it.

Given the perceived management involvement, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted the certification based on the union's membership evidence.

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

The Board found that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices during the organizing campaign, which chilled employee support.

During bargaining, the employer refused to provide the union with the names, addresses, telephone numbers, and wage rates of bargaining unit employees, and maintained uncompromising positions without reasonable justification.

The Board concluded that the collective bargaining process had been unsuccessful due to the employer's refusal to recognize the union's bargaining authority and its failure to make reasonable efforts to conclude an agreement.

The Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

During an application for certification, the respondent employer alleged that two employees had not paid the required one dollar fee when signing union membership cards.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held an evidentiary hearing to assess the credibility of the witnesses.

The Board found that the union collector had engaged in deliberate misconduct by telling the employees not to worry about paying the fee and to conceal the non-payment.

Consequently, the Board rejected all 21 membership cards collected by that individual.

A dissenting Board member would have only rejected the two specific cards in question.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had previously applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration, which was granted by another panel of the Board.

The Board held that under section 40a(22) of the Labour Relations Act, it must consider the applications in the order it deems appropriate, and if it grants one, it must dismiss the other.

The Board determined it was appropriate to consider the first contract application prior to the termination application.

Since the first contract application was granted, the termination application was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers, including surveyors, employed by the respondent in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry.

The Board dismissed the intervention of another union for lack of status.

The Board found that the applicant did not have an established trade union practice of representing surveyors in the construction industry, whereas the intervener had a history of such representation and was the designated employee bargaining agency for surveyors.

The Board concluded it could not determine an appropriate bargaining unit that included trades other than those contained in the applicant's designation order, and dismissed the application.

The complainant Carpenters union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding house framing work assigned to a subcontractor.

The respondent Labourers union and the intervener argued the Board should refuse to entertain the complaint, asserting it was an abuse of process and essentially a representational dispute over bargaining rights rather than a true work assignment dispute.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to refuse the complaint, finding that the representational aspects of the dispute and the abuse of process allegations were matters better addressed when hearing the merits of the complaint.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board examined the voluntariness of the petition signed by employees in support of the application.

The Board found that the applicant had misrepresented to employees that he had a confidential source indicating that previous benefits would be reinstated if the union was decertified, leading employees to perceive a link with management.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition was not voluntary and dismissed the application.

A dissenting board member would have ordered a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification and agreed with the respondent employer on a bargaining unit description for office and clerical employees that excluded technical employees.

Because this departed from the Board's usual 'office, clerical and technical' description, a hearing was held to determine its appropriateness.

The Board emphasized its statutory obligation to determine the appropriate unit regardless of the parties' agreement, but ultimately accepted the proposed unit as appropriate in the circumstances.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties of several individuals whose inclusion in the unit remained in dispute.

The complainant alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to take her grievance to arbitration.

The grievance arose after the employer removed her from a newly awarded position, determining that the position should not have been posted as another employee was already performing the work in that classification.

The Board found that the union directed its mind to the merits of the grievance and made a reasoned decision based on established practice and the collective agreement.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a craft bargaining unit of stationary engineers employed at a sewage treatment plant, seeking to carve them out from an existing, broader industrial bargaining unit represented by the intervener.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act to permit the craft severance.

The Board found that the stationary engineers did not have a separate community of interest, and that carving out a small unit would lead to undue fragmentation and potential industrial instability.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The complainant union filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a jurisdictional dispute over heat recovery operator positions at a sewage treatment plant.

As a preliminary matter, the Board considered whether the complainant had abandoned its bargaining rights with the respondent municipality.

The Board found that the complainant had not engaged in collective bargaining since 1981, failed to respond to a notice to bargain, and acquiesced to the respondent's position that similar positions fell within another union's bargaining unit.

The Board concluded that the complainant had abandoned its bargaining rights and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights in the construction industry.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application on the basis that the applicant was not an employee in the bargaining unit on the application date.

The Board granted the motion, applying its consistent practice in the construction industry of counting only those employees actually present at work on the application date.

Since the applicant was not at work on that date, he lacked status under section 57(2) of the Labour Relations Act to bring the application.