Stephen Wahl

The Iron Workers filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of window and curtain wall installation work at a nursing home project.

The general contractor, PCL, subcontracted the work to AGS, who assigned it to members of the Glaziers union.

The Iron Workers argued that PCL was the 'employer' assigning the work and was bound by a subcontracting clause in their collective agreement.

The Board held that the subcontractor, AGS, was the 'employer' for the purposes of section 99(1)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Considering employer and area practice, the Board upheld AGS's assignment of the work to the Glaziers and dismissed the application.

The applicants filed an unfair labour practice complaint against their union, alleging numerous violations of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, including breaches of the duty of fair referral and the duty of fair representation, as well as intimidation and coercion.

In an earlier decision, the Board found that the union's hiring hall system violated section 75 of the Act.

In this phase, the Board dismissed most of the applicants' other allegations, finding that the union's decision not to advance certain grievances and its application of election eligibility rules were not unlawful.

However, the Board found that threats made by union officials against the applicants for seeking financial information and filing the Board complaint violated section 87(2).

The Board awarded damages to the applicants for the unlawful operation of the hiring hall, calculating the amounts based on the average earnings of union members, but applying percentage reductions to account for the applicants' individual propensities to refuse work referrals and periods of ineligibility.

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 applicants, two construction trade unions, applied for certification to represent their respective trades in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector and all other sectors of the construction industry in Board Area 3.

The parties disagreed on the appropriate bargaining unit descriptions, particularly regarding the exclusion of pre-existing bargaining rights held by the Power Workers' Union (PWU) and the applicants' own rights in the electrical power systems sector.

The Board determined that the electrical power systems sector bargaining rights should be excluded by reference to the specific collective agreements rather than the sector itself.

The Board found the Labourers' proposed bargaining unit appropriate with slight amendments, but rejected the U.A.'s proposed unit because it inappropriately sought to incorporate a jurisdictional accord that the employer had not agreed to.

The applicant Boilermakers and the responding party Labourers' disputed the assignment of work involving the removal of a convection oil heater at a plant in Sarnia.

The employer had assigned the majority of the work to the Boilermakers.

The Board considered area practice, employer practice, and skill and ability, finding that the work was performed in an 'operating environment' which favoured the Boilermakers due to safety concerns.

The Board upheld the employer's assignment of the work to the Boilermakers.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute concerning the operation of cranes and forklifts at a construction site.

The responding parties objected to the Board entertaining the application, arguing that the dispute had already been decided by an arbitrator under the Canadian Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry.

The Board held that the applicant local union was not stipulated to the Plan, either in its own right or through its parent international union, and was not a privy of the international union.

Consequently, the applicant was not bound by the Plan's arbitration decision.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the application and directed that the matter be scheduled for consultation.

The applicants, two construction trade unions, applied for certification to represent employees working on a steam pipeline at the Bruce Energy Centre.

The responding party, Ontario Hydro, raised a preliminary objection that the employees were already represented by the applicants under existing Electrical Power Systems Construction Association (EPSCA) collective agreements.

The central issue was whether the work was performed 'on Ontario Hydro property' within the meaning of the EPSCA agreements.

The Board found that Ontario Hydro did not have a sufficient property interest in the lands where the work was performed to bring it within the scope of the EPSCA agreements.

Consequently, the Board ruled that the employees were not represented under the EPSCA agreements on the application date, allowing the certification applications to proceed.

The applicant employers' organization filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding trade unions bargained in bad faith by pressing to impasse a demand that the applicant's members contribute to an industry fund operated by a rival employers' organization.

The Board found that the trade unions' insistence on this provision as a condition to end a strike interfered with the administration of the applicant and provided improper support to the rival organization, contrary to section 71 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board concluded that pressing this demand to impasse constituted a failure to bargain in good faith under section 17.

The Labourers' union brought a motion arguing that a prior Board decision (the Surdykowski decision) had finally determined that crew leaders in the residential roofing industry are employers, and that this finding was binding in the current proceedings under the doctrine of res judicata.

The Carpenters opposed the motion.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the prior determination regarding crew leaders generally was not fundamental to the substantive decision in that case, and that there was no identity of parties or privies between the Carpenters and the parties in the prior proceeding.

The Board also declined to apply the doctrine strictly for policy reasons, ensuring the Carpenters' right to a hearing on the merits regarding the employee status of crew leaders.

The union applied for certification and alleged unfair labour practices against the employer, including the termination of a union supporter and the circulation of an anti-union questionnaire by a managerial employee.

The Board found that the termination was motivated by anti-union animus and that the questionnaire constituted unlawful interference.

Concluding that a representation vote would not reflect the true wishes of the employees due to the chilling effect of the employer's actions, the Board granted automatic certification under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and ordered the reinstatement of the terminated employee with compensation.

The applicant employer brought an application under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act to resolve a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of instrumentation work.

Historically, pneumatic instrumentation was assigned to the I.A.M. and electronic instrumentation to the I.B.E.W. Due to technological changes, the employer assigned pneumatic work to the I.B.E.W. to improve efficiency, which the I.A.M. grieved.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the application and concluded that the existing demarcation line was irrational.

The Board ordered that jurisdiction over pneumatic instrumentation be shared on an interim basis.

The applicant developer sought a declaration and direction under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party trade union threatened an unlawful strike.

The union's business representative had threatened to picket the applicant's construction site if a non-union masonry contractor continued to perform work.

The Board found that the threat to picket constituted a real threat to call or authorize an unlawful strike, as union members would likely refuse to cross the picket line.

The Board issued a cease and desist order against the union.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Ferretti Forming Inc. and Fer-Pal Construction Ltd. were a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and relief under section 69 for a sale of a business.

The responding parties conceded the pre-conditions for section 1(4) were met but argued against the Board exercising its discretion.

The Board found that Ferretti Forming voluntarily entered into a bargaining relationship to secure union work, without intermingling of employees or diversion of work from the unionized company.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to grant the related employer declaration and dismissed the application.

The applicant union referred two construction industry grievances to the Board, alleging the responding party employer violated the subcontracting provisions of the Provincial Agreement.

The employer disputed the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the work fell outside the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector and requested a sector determination.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to arbitrate the grievances and that a sector determination was unnecessary, as the Provincial Agreement's terms extended to all sectors where the union held bargaining rights with the employer.

In a referral of a construction industry grievance to arbitration, the Board considered whether the Metropolitan Toronto Road Builders Association (MTRBA) should be granted status to intervene.

The grievance involved allegations that the responding party failed to properly pay union members for overtime work on the Highway 407 project.

The Board found that the MTRBA did not have status to intervene as of right, as it was not bound by the specific Project Agreement in question.

However, the Board exercised its discretion to grant the MTRBA intervenor status to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings and ensure the decision would bind all relevant subcontractors performing work on the project.

The applicant trade union applied under section 7 of the Labour Relations Act to combine a bargaining unit of maintenance services and plant operations employees with a unit of cleaners.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing that the Board should consider the current government's stated intention to revoke the combination provisions and the declining state of educational sector financing.

The Board rejected these arguments, holding that it must apply the legislation currently in effect and that the combination would promote viable and stable collective bargaining.

The Board directed the combination of the two units.

The applicant Millwrights filed a complaint concerning the assignment of work involving the installation of flumes at a Ford engine plant.

The work was performed exclusively by Ironworkers employed by Victoria Steel, which was bound by a collective agreement with the Ironworkers but not the Millwrights.

The Millwrights sought a declaration and order that 50% of the work be assigned to their members, relying on previous Board decisions regarding material handling systems.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding it had no jurisdiction to bind a contractor to such an order where the applicant union does not have a collective agreement with the employer.

The union filed a construction grievance alleging the employer failed to pay wage increases under the Provincial Agreement.

The employer argued the Social Contract Act applied, freezing compensation, and that the Board lacked jurisdiction due to the Act's adjudication provisions.

The Board held it had jurisdiction to interpret the application of the Act to the collective agreement.

The Board found the Social Contract Act applied to the ICI sector employees of the school board.

However, for two grievors earning less than $30,000 annually from the employer, the Act's 'fail safe' wage freeze did not apply, and they were entitled to the negotiated wage increases.

The applicant employer, a cleaning company providing services to a community college, applied for a determination under section 73.2(12) of the Labour Relations Act to use specified replacement workers during an anticipated strike.

The employer argued that replacement workers were necessary to prevent danger to life, health, and safety under section 73.2(3) by maintaining minimum cleaning standards at the college.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that even if the college operated at full capacity, the employer had sufficient managerial personnel available to perform the minimum cleaning necessary to prevent such danger without the need for specified replacement workers.

The responding party employer raised a preliminary objection to a grievance referral, arguing that the applicant union had abandoned its bargaining rights.

The employer had signed a voluntary recognition agreement but later ceased applying it, operating non-union.

The Board found that the union was reasonably unaware that the employer was operating non-union during the relevant period, as the employer used a related company's name on job sites.

The Board concluded that the union's actions, including filing a grievance and an application for certification, were consistent with an assertion of bargaining rights, and therefore the union had not abandoned its rights.