Michael A. Church

The complainants filed a work assignment complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the installation of metal stamping presses.

At the hearing, the complainants amended their request, seeking only a declaration for educational purposes rather than an assignment of the work.

The Board exercised its discretion under subsection 91(1) not to inquire into the complaint, finding that a purely academic declaration would serve no labour relations purpose.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondents in the construction industry.

The Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote, and the ballots were segregated pending the resolution of several issues, including whether the applicant is an affiliated bargaining agent and whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

The intervener argued that other building trades unions should receive notice of the proceedings because their bargaining rights might be affected.

The Board consolidated the applications, severed the affiliated bargaining agent issue to be decided first, and directed the respondents to provide information on whether they employed any other trades on the application date to determine if notice to other unions is required.

The union applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter pending a representation vote on a termination application, with the arbitration to proceed if the union won the vote.

The union won the vote, and the Board proceeded to arbitrate the first contract.

The Board rejected the employer's argument that the contract should reflect the relative bargaining strengths of the parties or be based on final offer selection.

The Board determined the disputed terms, including union dues, jury duty, negotiating committee, holidays, health and welfare benefits, strikes and lockouts, wages, and working rules, imposing a collective agreement to be in effect until November 30, 1988.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The parties partially agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed the inclusion of certain positions.

The applicant filed membership evidence and a Form 9 declaration that disclosed minor discrepancies in the collection of membership fees and signatures.

The respondent employer sought to inspect the membership evidence or, alternatively, requested a hearing to cross-examine the union on the discrepancies.

The Board denied the employer's requests, affirming its long-standing practice and statutory mandate under section 111(1) of the Labour Relations Act to maintain the secrecy of union membership records.

The Board found the discrepancies noted in the Form 9 did not cast doubt on the reliability of the membership evidence.

As the union demonstrated support well in excess of the required 55 per cent, the Board issued an interim certificate pending the final resolution of the bargaining unit composition.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

On the terminal date, the respondent employer filed a list of eight employees.

Later, during the Labour Relations Officer's inquiry, the employer sought to add five additional names to the list, claiming that relevant documents had just been located.

The Board denied the request, finding that the employer had the documents in its possession at all material times and made no reservations when filing the original list.

Allowing the late amendment would render the terminal date requirements meaningless.

The Board proceeded to certify the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters employed by the respondents in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector, as well as all employees in all other sectors in Board Area 16.

The interveners argued that under the Board's displacement policy, the applicant must seek to represent all employees in the existing concrete forming bargaining unit.

The Board held that the requirements of section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act take precedence over the displacement policy, allowing the applicant to carve out its traditional craft.

However, the Board found that a unit combining carpenters in the ICI sector with all trades in other sectors was inappropriate, as it would require complex sectoral determinations.

The Board determined the appropriate unit under section 144(1) to be carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in both the ICI sector and all other sectors in Board Area 16, while allowing the application to be treated as simultaneously seeking a separate unit for other trades under section 144(3).

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The central issue was whether several employees should be classified as carpenters or labourers, given that they performed multiple types of work.

The majority of the Board relied on the respondent's coding system to determine that only four employees spent the majority of their time performing carpentry work during the representative period.

Because the union only filed membership evidence for one of those four employees, it lacked the requisite 45% support, and the application was dismissed.

A dissenting Board member argued that the coding system was unreliable and would have found sufficient membership support to grant certification.

The complainant building trade unions alleged a violation of a consent access order by the respondents.

The respondents argued the order was spent.

The Board found a bona fide justification for the unions' continued need for access to the property to persuade employees to join, particularly given a competing certification application by the Steelworkers.

The Board declined to read a temporal limitation into the access order and declared it continued in effect until a vote is held or the certification applications are determined.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 or section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Banister Continental Ltd. was a successor or single employer following its amalgamation with Pitts Engineering Construction Limited.

The union argued this was necessary to protect its bargaining rights from future non-union spin-offs.

The respondents argued that declaring the parent company the successor would improperly expand the union's bargaining rights to other divisions.

The Board held that the purpose of sections 1(4) and 63 is to preserve, not extend, bargaining rights.

The Board declared that Pitts Engineering Construction, a division of Banister Continental Ltd., is the successor employer.

In an application for certification, the interveners argued that certain employees should not be counted in the bargaining unit because they were hired contrary to the existing collective agreement, relying on the April Waterproofing principle.

The Board declined to apply the principle, finding that the interveners had failed to act with reasonable diligence to enforce their bargaining rights after becoming aware of the project's resumption.

The Board directed that the ballots of the eligible employees be counted for bargaining unit #1, and dismissed the application respecting bargaining unit #2.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement regarding reporting pay.

Five carpenters worked five hours of pre-arranged overtime on a Sunday and were paid for five hours at double time.

The union argued that under Article 18, the employees were entitled to an additional four hours' pay because they worked one hour into the second half of the shift.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Article 18 applies only to regularly scheduled daily work and not to extraordinary overtime situations on weekends where there are no normal daily hours.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that two companies, Bramalea and Pinehurst, were one employer.

The companies were under common control and direction, with Bramalea operating as a unionized installation subcontractor and Pinehurst operating as a non-union woodworking shop and installation business.

The Board found that the statutory preconditions for a declaration were met.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to make the declaration, finding that the union was attempting to use section 1(4) as a substitute for certification to sweep a large group of non-union employees into the bargaining unit without demonstrating their support.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer filed a complaint alleging that its employees engaged in an unlawful strike by concertedly refusing to work overtime.

The employees, who worked in a continuous production process, had become frustrated with a reduction in staffing and an increased workload.

They collectively decided to refuse all overtime work, despite a collective agreement provision making overtime voluntary.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a concerted refusal to work voluntary overtime constitutes a strike under the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that the employees' actions were an unlawful strike during the term of a collective agreement, the Board exercised its discretion to issue a declaration and a cease and desist order.