Mark Zigler

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

The respondent employer argued that its three employees were neither certified journeymen nor registered apprentices, and thus could not be included in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the trade of glazier is a voluntary trade under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act, meaning uncertified persons can lawfully perform the work.

The Board held that in the construction industry, bargaining units are defined by the work performed rather than the individual qualifications of the employees.

Since the employees were performing glaziers' work, they were included in the bargaining unit, and the Board granted the certification.

The applicant employer referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union improperly refused to issue a work permit to a newly hired first-year apprentice.

The employer had hired the apprentice directly, relying on clause 2.05(a) of the collective agreement.

The Board, following a previous decision interpreting the same clause, found that the employer was entitled to hire the new apprentice since its shop ratio was in order.

Consequently, the Board directed the union to supply the apprentice with a regular work permit without delay.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the collective agreement had expired and the applicant was no longer a party to it.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the grievance was founded on an incident that occurred during the existence of the collective agreement and was filed within the mandatory time limits.

The Board held that the right to refer the grievance to arbitration crystallized during the term of the agreement, and the matter was referred to the Registrar for listing for a further hearing.

The applicant employee sought to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer had previously paid the applicant's legal fees for a similar anti-union petition during a prior certification application.

Because this financial link between the employer and the applicant was known to other employees, the Board could not be satisfied that the current petition was signed voluntarily and without fear of employer involvement.

The application was dismissed.

The complainant, a union member, was fined $1,000 by his union for supporting a rival union's displacement campaign.

He filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging violations of sections 3 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

At the hearing, the complainant's counsel explicitly withdrew any reliance on section 80(2)(b), which specifically prohibits unions from imposing penalties on persons for exercising rights under the Act.

The Board found that while the complainant had a right to participate in the rival union's campaign, the mere imposition of a disciplinary fine did not constitute 'intimidation or coercion' within the meaning of section 70.

Because the complainant had abandoned the section 80(2)(b) claim, and the Board refused a post-hearing request to reopen the case to argue it, the complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act alleging the respondent company failed to remit various benefit payments.

The union sought an order for substitutional service of a subpoena on the respondent's principal, who was evading service.

The Board held that it lacks the statutory authority to order substitutional service of a subpoena or to issue a direction to appear carrying penal consequences without personal service.

The Board outlined the applicant's options to either seek an adjournment to effect personal service or proceed on the merits with available evidence.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that a numbered company and Mandic Bros. constituted one employer, or alternatively that a sale of business occurred under section 63.

The Board dismissed the section 63 application as no evidence was presented.

Regarding section 1(4), while there was some interchange of employees and shared premises, Mandic Bros. had operated as a non-union contractor for over five years before the numbered company was formed and signed a voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration, finding no erosion of bargaining rights and noting the union could have applied for certification of Mandic Bros.

A dissenting board member would have granted the declaration.

The appellant was laid off and subsequently received accumulated employer payments from a vacation pay trust fund.

An Unemployment Insurance Officer allocated these benefits as earnings, reducing the appellant's unemployment insurance benefits.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the accumulated trust monies represented direct savings by the appellant, not vacation pay, as the funds were subject to a trust and had already been taxed.

The appeal was allowed and the decision of the Board of Referees was restored.

The applicant union filed an application alleging a sale of business and related employer status between the respondents.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application without a hearing, arguing the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case and demanding further particulars.

The Board held that the application made out a prima facie case and that the statutory reverse onus provisions limit the extent to which an applicant must particularize facts exclusively within the respondents' knowledge.

However, the Board directed the applicant to provide further particulars regarding specific allegations of improper conduct.

The Board also deferred ruling on the intervener's status until it adduced evidence of a valid collective agreement.

The union filed grievances alleging the employers violated the collective agreement by failing to provide or pay for screws and nails used by drywall applicators.

The employers complained the union bargained in bad faith by remaining silent on the issue during negotiations to alter past practice.

The Board held that the union's silence did not constitute bad faith bargaining, as the employers should have known the terms of the preceding agreement.

Interpreting the new collective agreement, which was silent on the issue unlike its predecessor, the Board found the employers were obligated to supply the materials and could not deduct their cost from piecework rates.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by failing to hire union members and by subcontracting work to a non-union firm.

The employer argued that the collective agreement had expired and that the union's notice to bargain was defective.

The Board found that the parties were bound by the provincial agreement, that the notice to bargain was valid given the parties' subsequent bargaining conduct, and that the employer had violated the hiring and subcontracting provisions.

The Board directed the parties to agree on the amount of damages owing to the union.

The complainant, a dependent contractor operating a crane, alleged that the respondent union violated the Labour Relations Act by requiring his employer to discharge him after denying him union membership.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint without a hearing, arguing that the complainant was not an employee covered by the collective agreement and therefore no prima facie case was established.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the complainant had made out a prima facie case that he was a dependent contractor and that the collective agreement was latently ambiguous regarding his inclusion in the bargaining unit.

The Board directed the matter to be listed for a full hearing.