OLRB 1993

The applicant unions filed grievances alleging that the responding party violated the Mainline Pipeline Agreement by failing to apply it to the manufacture and supply of concrete from a permanent batching plant in Cochrane.

The concrete was supplied to a contractor manufacturing concrete weights for a pipeline project.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the manufacture and supply of concrete from a permanent facility is not construction work covered by the Pipeline Agreement, distinguishing it from portable batching plants used on-site.

One Board Member dissented in part regarding the Teamsters' agreement.

The Canadian Paperworkers Union applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for consent to continue its supervision and control over four local unions for a further twelve months under section 84 of the Labour Relations Act.

The local unions opposed the application, arguing the trusteeship was imposed in bad faith and that the locals no longer held bargaining rights.

The Board found it had jurisdiction and granted the continuation, noting that the trustee had been unable to complete his functions due to the locals' resistance and that the underlying dispute over assets would ultimately be resolved by the courts.

The applicant union sought interim relief pending the final disposition of an unfair labour practice discharge complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found an arguable case for the relief requested and that the balance of harm favoured the applicant.

The Board directed the responding party employer to reinstate the two discharged employees on an interim basis and to post a notice to employees regarding their rights under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by using non-union personnel to perform electrical work.

The disputed work involved the commissioning of the Environmental Control and Fire Alarm Systems at a hospital project, specifically tasks related to programmable controllers and software verification.

The respondent argued that the commissioning of software was not construction work and therefore fell outside the union's jurisdiction.

The Board held that the commissioning of the systems, including both hardware and software (excluding the use of high-level computer language like Pascal), is part of the construction phase and falls within the ICI provisions of the collective agreement.

The Board found a violation of the agreement and remained seized on the quantum of damages.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit composed solely of Registered and Graduate Nursing Assistants (RNAs) at the responding hospital.

The hospital opposed the application, arguing that an RNA-only unit would lead to undue fragmentation and that a broader service or paramedical unit was appropriate.

The Board reviewed the specific facts, including the lack of interchange between RNAs and other classifications, the historical anomaly of the RNA role, and the employees' right to self-organization.

The majority of the Board concluded that the RNA-only unit was appropriate and granted the certification application.

One Board member dissented, citing concerns over fragmentation in the health care sector.

The Practical Nurses Federation of Ontario applied for certification to represent a unit of registered and graduate nursing assistants at the Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital.

The Hospital raised a preliminary objection based on res judicata, arguing that the Board had recently dismissed a prior application between the same parties for the same bargaining unit, finding it inappropriate.

The applicant argued that material facts had changed since the prior decision.

The Board held that the facts relied upon as 'new' were anticipated in the prior decision and did not constitute a material change sufficient to permit re-litigation.

The application was dismissed on the basis of issue estoppel, with one Board Member dissenting.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees of the responding party.

The parties agreed on all matters and waived a formal hearing.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and the proposed bargaining unit to be appropriate.

The Board noted that while students-at-law are not entitled to practice law and may not fall under the professional employee provisions of the Labour Relations Act, a majority of the affected persons wished to be included in the unit regardless.

Finding that more than 55 percent of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.