Murray Stanley Gold

The applicant union sought the Board's consent to institute a prosecution against the respondent employer for allegedly denying a union official access to the respondent's premises on January 21 and 22, 1987, in breach of a prior Board order issued under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Board found the applicant established a prima facie case of the alleged breaches and granted consent to prosecute.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of painters and drywall tapers employed by the respondent.

The parties disputed the employment status of two individuals, whom the respondent claimed were independent contractors, and the inclusion of three others based on the work they performed.

The Board applied the fourfold and organizational tests to find the two individuals were employees.

The Board also found the other three individuals were properly included in the bargaining unit as they spent a majority of their time doing bargaining unit work on the application date.

The Board announced it would no longer use a 'representative period' to determine bargaining unit inclusion in the construction industry, restricting the inquiry to the application date.

As the union had less than forty-five percent membership support in the resulting unit, the application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for a right of access to the respondent employer's remote highway construction site under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act for organizing purposes.

The parties agreed on most terms of access but disputed the effective date and whether union representatives must sign a waiver of liability.

The Board ordered immediate access, rejecting the employer's request for a delay until the owner could be present.

The Board also held that the statutory right of access should not be conditional on waiving liability for potential injury or loss, noting that union representatives had agreed to abide by safety regulations.

A dissenting board member would have required the waiver, arguing that the employer should not bear the potential costs of union organizing activities.

The applicants, employees of Fern Brand Waxes Ltd., applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union challenged the termination petition because 12 of the 22 signatures consisted of only first or last names, arguing this did not meet the formal requirements of the Board's Rule 73.

The Board found that the employees clearly intended the incomplete signatures to represent their names and that the petition was signed knowingly and voluntarily.

The Board accepted the petition and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the incomplete signatures invalid.