Stephen Wahl

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.

Following a declaration of a sale of a business and an intermingling of employees, a representation vote was held between two competing unions, Local 3264 and Local 774.

Local 3264 won the vote.

Local 774 brought a motion to set aside the results, alleging unfair labour practices by Local 3264 and the employer, including threats, misleading campaign literature, and destruction of campaign materials.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the allegations, even if true, were not sufficient to overwhelm the critical faculties of the reasonable voter and did not warrant the extraordinary remedy of a second representation vote.

The applicants filed an application alleging that the responding parties engaged in an unlawful strike contrary to section 144 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

On agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, without prejudice to any party, subject to being brought back on 24 hours' notice if similar conduct is alleged.

Following a sale of a business and the intermingling of employees, a representation vote was held and Local 3264 was declared the successful bargaining agent.

Local 774 requested the Board to determine which collective agreement should apply and to determine the relative seniority of the employees now represented by Local 3264.

The Board held that under section 69(6) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, it lacks the jurisdiction to determine seniority rights.

The Board further held that the scheme of section 69 anticipates that the collective agreement of the successful trade union applies to the entire bargaining unit.

The Board declared that the predecessor collective agreement no longer bound the employer and amended the successful union's bargaining unit description accordingly.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board addressed preliminary matters in a Ministerial reference regarding the appointment of a conciliation officer and a related unfair labour practice application alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Board consolidated the matters on consent, directed the applicants to serve a proper Notice of Constitutional Question, and deferred a ruling on an intervenor's standing.

To expedite the proceedings, the Board directed the parties to provide legal argument and identify proposed evidence on whether a trade union may unilaterally abandon its bargaining rights and the implications of such abandonment.

Following a declaration of a sale of a business and an intermingling of employees, a representation vote was held between two competing union locals.

Local 774 sought to set aside the vote results, alleging unfair labour practices by Local 3264 and the employer.

The Board ruled that the appropriate bargaining unit had already been finally determined by prior agreement and decision.

The Board also dismissed Local 774's motion, finding no prima facie case that the vote did not represent the true wishes of the employees, and confirmed Local 3264 as the bargaining agent.

A hearing was scheduled for remaining issues.

The applicant union referred grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, concerning the application of the Operating Engineers' Provincial Agreement to the responding parties' crane and equipment rental businesses.

On the second day of the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The Board issued a consent declaration confirming that the Provincial Agreement requires the responding parties to observe Schedule 'A' throughout Ontario, including Lambton County, but acknowledging that an estoppel permits the application of Schedule 'F' in Lambton County until the expiry of the current agreement.

The applicants sought relief under sections 96 and 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding the International union's decision to transfer geographic jurisdiction and its refusal to approve a merger between two locals.

The applicants withdrew two of their applications and amended the third to remove all responding parties except the International.

Local 607 was granted intervenor status.

Local 607 brought motions for an interim order to remove the administration of the hiring hall and union funds from the applicants, and for a declaration that Local 491 had ceased to exist.

The Board dismissed both motions, finding that the requested interim order was substantive rather than procedural, and that the status quo of the hiring hall administration was maintained under section 147(5) of the Act.

The Carpenters and Labourers unions disputed the assignment of work involving the dismantling and removal of seats from the North Grandstand of Exhibition Stadium prior to its demolition.

The employer had assigned the work to a composite crew of approximately 60% labourers and 40% carpenters.

The Labourers claimed exclusive jurisdiction based on a collective agreement appendix covering maintenance and repair of seating in the Stadium.

The Board found that the appendix applied to an operating venue, not demolition, and upheld the employer's assignment to a composite crew as reasonable and consistent with the practice in the rest of Exhibition Place.

The applicant filed a termination application and the union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

The parties reached an agreement to resolve the outstanding issues.

The Board ordered that the previous representation vote be declared a nullity and the ballots destroyed.

A fresh representation vote was ordered to determine if the employees wish to continue to be represented by the union.

The Board also set out the consequences of the vote depending on the outcome, as agreed by the parties.

In a termination application and related unfair labour practice complaint, the union sought to introduce additional particulars concerning events that occurred after the termination application was filed, specifically the ratification of a renewal collective agreement.

The employer objected to the admission of these particulars on the basis of relevance.

The Board held that the particulars were irrelevant because the determination of whether the termination application was employer-initiated under s. 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 concerns facts existing on or before the application date.

The Board also rejected the union's arguments that the ratification vote rendered the termination application moot or warranted a fresh representation vote, noting that a renewal collective agreement is contingent upon the outcome of a timely termination application.

The particulars were struck from the pleadings.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging irregularities in a second representation vote, including inadequate notice to eligible employees, intimidation by union representatives near the polling station, and improper inducement through the purchase of breakfast for employees.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found that adequate notice was provided via a posted Notice of Vote, the mere presence of union representatives near the polling station without evidence of coercive statements did not constitute intimidation, and the purchase of breakfast amounted to acceptable salesmanship rather than improper inducement.

The Board dismissed the employer's complaint and directed that a certificate issue to the union.

The Board heard preliminary matters regarding a termination application and an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board ordered the applications consolidated as they involved common evidence.

The Board allowed the applicant to amend the name of the responding party in the termination application under section 112 of the Act, finding the error was a bona fide mistake.

Finally, the Board determined the order of proceeding, directing the unions to adduce evidence first, as the core factual allegations regarding employer interference were not acknowledged by the employer and the unions' witnesses were best positioned to establish the factual foundation.

During a hearing, the responding parties requested an order directing the applicant to produce documents it intended to rely on at the continuation of the hearing.

The applicant objected, arguing that early production could compromise its cross-examination and that some documents were held by third parties.

The Board ordered the applicant to produce all documents in its possession or control prior to the continuation of the hearing to avoid 'hearings by ambush', but exempted documents held by third parties that could not be obtained voluntarily.

The applicant employee filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The responding union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that the applicant failed to serve notice on each Affiliated Bargaining Agency and constituent member of the Employee Bargaining Agency as required by section 63(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant had served the trade union named on the ICI certificate, which was a party to the collective agreement.

Consequently, the Board held that the service requirements were met and dismissed the preliminary motion.

The union applied for certification and filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging the employer implemented a significant wage increase two days before a representation vote and made threats regarding unionization.

The Board found that the wage increase, even if decided earlier, was implemented to influence the vote, violating sections 70 and 72 of the Labour Relations Act.

The unilateral wage increase also violated the statutory freeze under section 86(2).

Consequently, the Board ordered a second representation vote under section 11, determining that the voting constituency must be based on the original application date to prevent the employer from benefiting from its unlawful conduct.

The Ironworkers and Millwrights filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of work by the general contractor, E.S. Fox Limited, for the installation of fabricated material forming part of an integrated material handling system.

The Boilermakers claimed the work based on their collective agreement and constitution.

The Board found that the area practice in Board Area 1 favoured the Ironworkers and Millwrights, and that this practice was open and notorious.

The Board upheld the employer's assignment of the work to equal numbers of Ironworkers and Millwrights performing all work functions interchangeably.

A second jurisdictional dispute involving the Sheet Metal Workers and Boilermakers was scheduled for a later date.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer failed to apply the Principal Agreement to work on a blast furnace.

The union argued that a previous consent order of the Board regarding a similar grievance established that the work was construction work and that the employer was bound by the agreement, relying on res judicata and issue estoppel.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that the previous consent order was reached without litigating the merits, and therefore the doctrines did not apply.

The Board also declined to hear evidence regarding the settlement discussions that led to the consent order, emphasizing the importance of protecting the settlement process.

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 applicant filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union.

The union argued the application was untimely because it was filed with Priority Courier after business hours on the last day of the open period, and because it was not delivered to the union within the required two days.

The Board found the application was filed on time, as the date of filing is the date it is accepted by Priority Courier.

However, the applicant failed to deliver the application to the union within two days of filing as required by the Rules.

The Board declined to relieve against the strict application of the delivery rules, noting the statutory requirement for expedition in termination applications.

The application was dismissed.