Richard J. Charney

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union at a specific branch.

The Board first amended the original certificate to reflect the branch's relocation to a new address, as requested by the union and employer without objection.

The Board then found that over 45% of employees in the full-time bargaining unit had voluntarily signified they no longer wished to be represented by the union, and directed a representation vote.

However, the application was dismissed with respect to the part-time bargaining unit, as less than 45% of those employees had signified such a desire.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.

The Board reconsidered and varied a portion of its previous decision regarding the intervener's bargaining rights.

On the merits of the certification, the Board refused to allow the respondent to add an employee to the list after multiple previous amendments, noting the information was always in the respondent's control.

The Board also found the applicant's documentary evidence of membership to be unambiguous and reliable.

As the applicant demonstrated membership support of over fifty-five percent, the Board issued certificates to the applicant without a representation vote.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, challenging the validity of subcontracting clauses in the respondent union's collective agreements.

The respondent and interveners brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint without a hearing.

The Board found that the complainant had previously filed an identical complaint years earlier, which had been adjourned sine die.

The Board held that the excessive delay in prosecuting the matter and the attempt to litigate the same issues in a new complaint constituted an abuse of process.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) to refuse to entertain the complaint and dismissed it, while directing the Registrar to relist the original adjourned complaint to determine its status.

The complainant filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the installation of site services at a plant building project.

The Board was asked to make a preliminary determination under section 150 of the Labour Relations Act as to whether the work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

The complainant argued that the Board should consider area practice in making this determination.

The Board held that the concepts of area practice and geographic area have no basis in the statutory definition of 'sector' in section 117(e), which is determined by work characteristics.

The Board directed that the matter be listed for continuation of hearing to entertain evidence of work characteristics.

The applicant union sought certification for construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent and intervener requested an adjournment, arguing the Board needed to interpret an existing collective agreement and address a related employer issue.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding it unnecessary to interpret the existing agreement to determine the appropriate bargaining unit, and noting the related employer issue was not properly before it.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and scheduled further hearings to resolve disputes over the list of employees.

During an application for certification, the applicant union brought a motion to exclude evidence regarding how it obtained membership evidence.

The union alleged the employer obtained this information by violating the Labour Relations Act and argued for an exclusionary rule similar to section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the motion, holding that the Board is not a criminal court and that relevant evidence is admissible regardless of how it was obtained, following the common law rule in Wray.

The Board considered a referral of a grievance to arbitration and a complaint over an assignment of work regarding concrete forming work at the Kipling Acres Home for the Aged.

The parties disputed whether the work was in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

The Board decided to defer further consideration of the matters until February 16, 1987, to allow an Industrial Inquiry Commissioner to attempt to mediate a resolution to the broader dispute between the Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders' Association and various unions over concrete forming work.

The applicant union filed two applications for certification in the construction industry.

A group of employees filed statements of desire in opposition.

At the hearing, the representative for the objecting employees requested an adjournment, arguing he had not received adequate notice of the hearing.

The Board found that the representative had not been served with a notice of hearing because the statement he filed lacked his return address and did not explicitly identify him as the representative.

However, because the Board also failed to issue a general notice to employees at the employer's address, the representative did not receive adequate notice.

The Board granted the adjournment to allow the representative time to retain counsel.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined a preliminary issue in a jurisdictional dispute regarding the installation of storm sewers and manholes on private property at a General Motors plant.

The complainant argued the work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, while the respondents argued it fell within the sewers and watermains sector.

The Board held that the work characteristics of installing sewers on private property are identical to those of installing sewers under public roads or in subdivisions.

Consequently, the Board declared that the work in dispute comes within the sewers and watermains sector of the construction industry.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the installation of site services at a Honda plant project, the Board addressed preliminary issues.

The Board granted intervener status to the Metropolitan Toronto Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association due to its representational connection to the respondent union and its members' performance of similar work in the area.

The Board also determined that it must first resolve whether the disputed work falls within the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector under section 150 of the Act before proceeding with the merits of the jurisdictional complaint, and directed that the matter be relisted for that purpose.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for a group of employers in the construction industry.

The Board found the applicant to be a properly constituted employers' organization with the necessary authority to act as an accredited bargaining agent.

The parties agreed on a bargaining unit description that segregated the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board determined that, given the existing pattern of collective bargaining and the abandonment of bargaining rights by other associations in this specific sub-sector, there were clear and compelling reasons to divide the residential sector.

The Board approved the agreed-upon unit of employers as appropriate for collective bargaining.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for employers in the sewers and watermains sector.

The respondent and interveners challenged the applicant's status, arguing it was not a properly constituted employers' organization under the Labour Relations Act due to alleged defects in its by-laws and their enactment.

The Board found that the applicant was an employers' organization within the meaning of the Act and that its by-laws were properly enacted.

The Board held that imposing additional pre-conditions for accreditation based on internal by-law provisions would exceed its jurisdiction, and concluded the applicant was a properly constituted organization.