Richard J. Charney

During a lawful strike, picketers consistently obstructed the employer's vans from entering and exiting the plant until police arrived.

The employer obtained an interlocutory injunction after police could not guarantee immediate assistance.

The union appealed, arguing the condition precedent in s. 102(3) of the Courts of Justice Act was not met because police eventually provided access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed most of the appeal, finding that reasonable efforts to obtain police assistance had failed to result in an acceptable degree of control.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part by striking the term limiting the number of picketers to four, holding that it unreasonably restricted the employees' right of expression.

The applicant, a national clothing retailer, applied under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it is a 'non-construction employer'.

The applicant regularly engaged general contractors to renovate and build its retail stores but had not directly employed construction workers for nearly two decades.

The Board applied the two-part test for a non-construction employer, finding that the applicant employed no construction employees on the application date and that its engagement in the construction industry was merely incidental to its primary business of retail.

The Board concluded the applicant met the statutory pre-conditions for the declaration, but deferred the final order pending a hearing on the responding party's Charter challenge.

The applicant union applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a sale of part of Ontario Hydro's business to the Bracebridge Hydro-Electric Commission.

The parties agreed that a sale and intermingling of employees had occurred following a municipal takeover under the Power Corporation Act.

The Board determined that the existing bargaining structure of separate 'inside' (office) and 'outside' units should be maintained.

The Board ordered a representation vote for the office employees, as the applicant formerly represented a sufficient percentage (one of three) of the intermingled employees.

However, the Board declined to order a vote for the outside employees, as the applicant formerly represented only 10% of that unit, and terminated the applicant's bargaining rights with respect to the outside unit.

The appellant town terminated its contract with a transportation company for the operation of its municipal transit system and commenced operating the system itself, hiring a significant number of the company's laid-off workers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that a 'sale of a business' had occurred under s. 64 of the Labour Relations Act, binding the town as a successor employer.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the town's appeal, holding that the Board's finding of a nexus between the company and the town was not patently unreasonable given their historical and functional connection.

In a work assignment dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the responding union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Board should not deal with the issue of which sector of the construction industry the work fell into because it was not raised in a timely manner.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant union had raised the sector issue squarely in its reply submissions over four weeks prior to the consultation, providing ample warning.

The Board adjourned the consultation to allow notice to be given to other interested parties and set a schedule for further submissions and a hearing.

The union filed a grievance alleging that work performed by the responding party on a watermain cement relining project should have been performed under the Heavy Collective Agreement rather than the Sewer and Watermain Collective Agreement.

The employers' association filed an application requesting a sector determination prior to the grievance referral.

The union brought a motion that the Board not entertain the sector dispute application.

The Board granted the union's motion, finding that a sector determination would not be dispositive of the grievance and was not necessary to resolve the collective agreement interpretation issue.

The sector dispute applications were dismissed and the grievance referral was directed to be listed for hearing.

The union applied for certification to represent stage employees of the Canadian Opera Company (COC).

Following a representation vote in which all voting employees supported the union, the COC argued the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process, alleging the union's true motive was to secure bargaining rights for a future, unbuilt opera house.

Alternatively, the COC sought to restrict the bargaining unit to its current rehearsal facilities based on alleged industry practice.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected the abuse of process argument, finding the union had legitimate interests in formalizing the existing relationship and expanding employment opportunities.

The Board also rejected the site-specific bargaining unit, granting a municipal-wide certificate to ensure stability of bargaining rights, noting the COC's ability to perform and build sets at various locations.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the responding parties assigned mechanical work on the Kingsway Retirement Residence project to a non-union contractor.

The parties sought a sector determination from the Ontario Labour Relations Board to decide whether the project fell within the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector or the residential sector.

After reviewing the end-use of the facility, which included significant medical and care services, common dining, and 24-hour nursing staff, the Board concluded that the retirement residence was institutional in nature.

Consequently, the Board determined that the construction project fell within the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The Power Workers' Union applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of part of Ontario Hydro's business to Lincoln Hydro Electric Commission following a statutorily mandated transfer of retail distribution assets.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that a sale of part of a business had indeed occurred, as Lincoln Hydro acquired a coherent and functioning part of Ontario Hydro's operation.

However, because only one former Ontario Hydro employee accepted a job with Lincoln Hydro and was intermingled with its largely non-union workforce, the Board exercised its discretion under section 69(6) to terminate the union's bargaining rights effective the date of the transfer.

The applicants alleged that the Mechanical Contractors Association of Windsor (MCAW) violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing to execute amendments to trust agreements to transform jointly trusteed pension and welfare funds into funds administered solely by union-appointed trustees, pursuant to a May 18, 1995 agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the May 18 agreement established a process for creating new trust plans administered solely by the union, it did not require the trustees of the existing benefit trusts to transfer the assets and funds for which they were responsible to the newly created trust plans.

The application was therefore dismissed.

The union filed a grievance and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that local employers and the Mechanical Contractors Association of Windsor (MCAW) breached the provincial collective agreement and the Labour Relations Act by refusing to implement provincially-negotiated changes to a local pension and welfare benefit plan.

The MCAW argued that the plan pre-dated provincial bargaining, operated outside the collective agreement, and that the Board should defer to the Courts or the plan's trust dispute mechanism.

The Board declined to defer, finding that the dispute engaged its exclusive jurisdiction over the statutory scheme and its role as the designated arbitrator for construction industry collective agreements.

The Board directed that the matters be listed for a hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board conducted a sector determination to decide whether the construction of a stand-alone raw sewage pumping station fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector or the sewer and watermain sector.

Applying an end-use analysis, the Board found that the pumping station did not process or treat sewage, but merely moved it along the sewage lines to a treatment facility.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the end use of the pumping station placed it within the sewer and watermain sector.

The applicant unions filed grievances alleging that the responding employers violated the provincial collective agreement by failing to remit the proper contribution amounts to multi-employer benefit plans.

Following the enactment of an 8% retail sales tax on group insurance premiums, the employers took the position that their negotiated contribution amounts were tax-inclusive, effectively reducing the net amount remitted to the funds.

The employers argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to enforce a tax statute.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to interpret the collective agreement and held that the negotiated contribution amounts were exclusive of the retail sales tax.

The employers were required to pay the tax in addition to the full contribution amounts specified in the collective agreement.

The union applied under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act for declarations that three taxi brokers and their respective associates should be treated as one employer for collective bargaining purposes.

The Board found that the brokers and associates carried on associated or related activities under common control or direction, given their functional integration and mutual economic dependence.

The Board exercised its discretion to issue the declarations and ordered a specific bargaining structure, as agreed upon by most parties, to ensure associates have a formal role in negotiations.

This is the dissenting opinion of Board Member Shamanski regarding a union application concerning the Town of Ajax's takeover of its transit system from Charterways Transportation Limited.

The dissenting member would have found that the Town's hiring of former Charterways employees was a humanitarian act rather than a transfer of an essential element of the business.

The member concluded that section 64.1(1) of the Labour Relations Act did not apply because the transaction occurred prior to January 1, 1993, and would have dismissed the union's application.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business occurred when the Town of Ajax terminated its transit operation contract with Charterways Transportation Limited and directly hired the majority of the former Charterways employees to continue operating the transit system.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that Charterways' business consisted primarily of providing a skilled workforce, which was its most valuable asset.

By acquiring this workforce, the Town transferred to itself an essential element of Charterways' business.

The Board concluded that a sale of a business had transpired within the meaning of section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that section 64.1(1) applied because the sale occurred on or after January 1, 1993, allowing for successorship from a federal to a provincial undertaking.

The union referred construction industry grievances to arbitration, arguing that a cross-over clause in the sewer and watermain collective agreement bound the responding employer to pay union rates for road building work.

The employer, who was not a member of the accredited employers' organization, argued that the organization's bargaining authority was limited to the sewer and watermain sector.

The Board held that the statutory accreditation scheme is based on sectoral bargaining and does not impose rights by operation of law beyond the specified sector.

Therefore, the cross-over clause did not apply to the non-member employer in the road building sector.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board was asked to make a sector determination regarding the construction of an underground concrete water storage tank.

The applicant union argued the work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, while the responding employer and intervenor union argued it was in the heavy engineering or sewer and watermain sectors.

Applying the test from The Heavy Construction Association of Toronto, the Board found that the tank's end use was part of a sewage treatment and water pollution control process, which is industrial in nature.

The Board concluded that the building of the water storage tank is work in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the labour relations between Charterways Transportation Limited and its unions fall within federal or provincial jurisdiction.

Charterways operates bus services across Ontario, including regular extra-provincial charters.

The unions argued that each local branch constituted a separate provincial undertaking.

The Board applied the test for federal undertakings and concluded that the core undertaking is the province-wide bus services, not the individual branches.

Because the province-wide undertaking includes regular and continuous extra-provincial charter activity, the Board advised that the labour relations between the parties fall within federal jurisdiction.

Five work assignment complaints were brought before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the handling and installation of enclosures for finned tube convectors.

The parties agreed to have the Board first determine the applicability and effect of the 1956 Interim National Agreement between the two unions.

The Board found that while the agreement applied to the work in dispute, it was not dispositive of the complaints because the Sheet Metal Workers had only recently sought to rely on it.

The Board concluded that other criteria, such as area and employer past practice, must also be considered, and directed a further hearing to determine whether the complaints should proceed en bloc or individually.