L. Steinberg

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

The Board found that the employer's president had assisted the applicant by finding a lawyer to represent the employees, and that this involvement was conveyed to the other employees at a meeting held on the employer's premises.

The Board concluded that the employer's conduct interfered with the employees' ability to voluntarily express their wishes.

As the statement of desire was not voluntary, the application was dismissed.

During a grievance arbitration hearing, the applicant union requested a bench warrant for a witness who failed to attend after being served with a subpoena duces tecum.

The Board declined to issue the warrant, finding that serving the witness on the afternoon prior to the hearing did not constitute reasonable notice, and therefore the witness was not duly served.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of bricklayers and stonemasons employed by the respondent municipality.

The respondent argued that an existing collective agreement with the intervener union covered these employees and acted as a bar to the application, seeking to introduce extrinsic evidence of negotiations to prove this intent.

The Board held that the collective agreement, which defined employees as those on the active payroll and lacked construction industry provisions, clearly did not cover construction bricklayers.

Finding no patent or latent ambiguity in the agreement, the Board refused to admit the extrinsic evidence.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act regarding work performed by the respondent employer.

The employer acknowledged being bound by the collective agreement but disputed the amount of damages, having reneged on a prior settlement.

Due to the employer's failure to keep proper payroll records, the Board accepted the union's credible estimate of the time required for the job, minus the time attributed to painting work which was not proven to be a violation.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $2,533.12 in damages.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent and the intervener union argued the application was untimely because they had entered into an 'all employee' collective agreement that covered the labourers.

The Board found that the intervener had only been certified to represent equipment operators and did not represent a majority of the labourers when the broader collective agreement was signed.

The Board declared under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act that the intervener was not entitled to represent the labourers, setting aside the collective agreement as it applied to them.

The Board then found the applicant had filed sufficient membership evidence and granted the application for certification.

During a certification application, the respondent's counsel failed to appear after an adjournment request was refused.

The applicant sought to introduce alleged prior statements of an absent witness as admissions against interest, which the Board refused due to their prejudicial value.

The applicant also requested the Board to certify facts to the Supreme Court for a bench warrant to enforce subpoenas against two absent witnesses.

The Board declined, ruling that the applicant must take responsibility for enforcing its own subpoenas.