Mark D. Contini

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to provide a physical copy of the Master Plan detailing welfare benefits under the collective agreement.

The employer argued that providing access to the document at its head office and answering questions by phone was sufficient.

The Board held that the refusal to provide a copy interfered with the union's ability to represent its members and fulfill its duty of fair representation under section 68.

The Board also declined to defer the matter to arbitration, noting that the complaint raised a novel issue regarding statutory rights under section 64.

The employer was directed to provide the union with a copy of the Master Plan.

The applicant, an employee, applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The applicant submitted a document containing signatures of employees who wished to decertify the union.

The document was a photocopy of individual sheets that had been pasted together, with the originals allegedly sent to the union's head office.

The union did not present evidence to contradict this claim.

The Board accepted the document as evidence of the employees' wishes, finding that the signatures collected by the applicant were obtained voluntarily.

The Board ordered a representation vote to determine if the employees wished to continue being represented by the union.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the petition should have been rejected due to its form and the circumstances of its circulation.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The union had requested conciliation for a 1984-1985 collective agreement, but the employer objected, arguing that the union failed to give timely notice to bargain under the 1983-1984 agreement, resulting in its automatic renewal.

The Board found that the union's late notice, given months after the agreement's expiry, did not constitute valid notice under section 53(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the collective agreement was automatically renewed, and the Minister lacked the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The applicant union, CUPE, applied for a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that it had acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor union, the Bethesda Service Employees Association, following a merger vote.

The employer took a neutral position, but a group of employees objected, suggesting some employees had second thoughts after the vote.

The Board found that the merger vote was well-attended and properly conducted, and that the employees' concerns did not warrant refusing the declaration or directing a new representation vote.

The Board granted the declaration of successor rights.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

The respondent employer and intervener union argued that the employees in question were 'form setters' or labourers covered by an existing collective agreement, not carpenters.

The Board examined the work performed by the 25 individuals in dispute and concluded that they were all performing traditional carpenter's work on a substantial and continuous basis.

Consequently, the Board determined that all 25 employees fell within the applicant's proposed bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent had acquired an assignment of a lease and purchased some equipment from a Dominion store that had been closed for a year and a half.

The Board found that due to the long hiatus between the closure of the predecessor and the opening of the respondent's business, any goodwill had dissipated.

The transaction was characterized as a mere transfer of surplus assets rather than the sale of a business.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant union filed a work assignment complaint regarding electrical installation work.

The respondent employer and intervening unions challenged the Board's jurisdiction under section 91(14) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing the collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board.

The complainant argued the respondent was not bound by the provincial agreement.

The respondent requested a related employer declaration under section 1(4) to be declared a single employer with its unionized subsidiary.

The Board found the preconditions for section 1(4) were met and exercised its discretion to make the declaration, binding the respondent to the provincial agreement.

Consequently, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint under section 91(14) and dismissed it.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer, Nelson Quarry, was attempting to undermine and destroy the union by contracting out work to non-union firms, notably Torres Transport Limited.

The employer raised two preliminary objections: first, that the matter should be deferred to the grievance-arbitration procedure under the collective agreement, and second, that the particulars of the complaint stretched too far back in time.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to defer to arbitration, finding that the allegations involved a potential repudiation of substantive statutory rights under the Labour Relations Act.

However, applying the principle of repose due to delay, the Board exercised its discretion under section 89 of the Act to refuse to inquire into any allegations of improper conduct occurring prior to the 18-month period immediately preceding the filing of the complaint.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be re-listed for hearing.

Sixteen employees filed an unfair labour practice complaint against their employer, Dufferin Aggregates, alleging that the employer was attempting to destroy the union by assigning work to another company.

The union declined to join the complaint.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the employees lacked status to bring the complaint without the union's support and that the Board should defer to arbitration.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the preliminary objection, holding that individual employees have status to bring a complaint under section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act to protect their individual rights, even without union support.

The Board also declined to defer to arbitration, as the complaint alleged a breach of the Act rather than merely a violation of the collective agreement.

The complainant alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act in its handling of his 1976 discharge grievance and subsequent arbitrations.

The complainant had been terminated for failing to notify the employer of his absence, resulting in a loss of seniority under the collective agreement.

The Board found that the union officials did not act in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.

The union's decisions not to retain outside counsel for the arbitration and not to pursue judicial review were consistent with established practice and did not constitute a breach of the Act.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant employer applied under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that the respondent union no longer represented its employees, alleging a failure to bargain.

The union had been certified in November 1979 and sent a notice to bargain, but failed to follow up or commence bargaining for over two years.

The union argued the application was untimely because it had recently requested the appointment of a conciliation officer.

The Board found the application timely as no officer had yet been appointed when it was filed.

Given the union's prolonged inactivity without justifiable reason, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine if the employees still wished to be represented by the union.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer unjustly discharged a union steward.

The union argued the discharge violated the provincial agreement and section 24(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, claiming the steward was fired for raising safety concerns about propane fumes.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the steward's conduct was not motivated by genuine health and safety concerns, but rather by a desire to disrupt the job site using a false safety claim.

The Board concluded the employer had just cause for the discharge.

During an ongoing hearing for a duty of fair representation complaint, the applicant moved for the production of notes made by a union official during the preparation of the applicant's arbitration case several years prior.

The union official testified that the notes were either lost, destroyed, or buried in hundreds of boxes sent to the Federal Archives.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding it unreasonable to direct the union to undertake a massive search for un-subpoenaed documents that may not exist or be relevant, especially given the applicant's delay in filing the complaint.