Lorne Richmond

The Ontario Locals of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (IUBAC) sought greater autonomy, leading the IUBAC to revoke their charters.

The Ontario Locals formed a new union, the Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada (BACU), and sought to be certified as the employee bargaining agency under section 154 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the IUBAC violated sections 147 and 149 by revoking the charters without just cause, declaring the revocations null and void.

However, the Board dismissed the BACU's applications for certification, finding that it did not meet the statutory definition of an employee bargaining agency.

The Board ordered structural remedies to protect the autonomy of the Ontario Locals from further unjustified interference by the IUBAC.

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 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 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 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.

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 trade union applied for certification, demonstrating membership support of approximately 72 per cent of the bargaining unit.

The respondent employer and a group of objecting employees requested that the Board order a representation vote, alleging that the organizing campaign was characterized by a climate of intimidation, particularly affecting the large number of Vietnamese refugees in the workforce.

The Board heard evidence of isolated threats but found no pattern of intimidation related to the collection of membership evidence.

Declining to order a vote based on generalized cultural characteristics or surmise, the Board exercised its discretion to certify the union based on the unequivocal membership evidence.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employers committed unfair labour practices during a lawful strike.

The union claimed the employers bargained in bad faith by refusing to disclose the actual wage rates of bargaining unit employees and by bargaining directly with striking employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employers violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by withholding the wage information, which was necessary for rational and informed collective bargaining.

The Board also found that one of the employers, Globe, violated sections 64 and 67(1) by engaging in direct negotiations with a group of employees, thereby undermining the union's exclusive bargaining rights.

The Board ordered the employers to cease direct bargaining, disclose the wage rates, and resume mediation.

The complainants requested a direction under section 91 of the Act regarding a work assignment dispute on a pipeline project.

The respondent unions raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) because the collective agreements required referring such disputes to a mutually selected tribunal.

The Board found that while one collective agreement contained a specific jurisdictional dispute mechanism, the other did not.

Therefore, the collective agreements did not establish a mutual dispute-settlement mechanism that would exclude the Board's jurisdiction.

The preliminary objection was dismissed and the matter was listed for a hearing on the merits.