Stephen Wahl

The applicants brought jurisdictional dispute applications regarding the assignment of work for the fabrication and installation of a monorail at the Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1000 raised a preliminary constitutional challenge, arguing that labour relations at the nuclear facility fall under federal jurisdiction.

The Board applied the functional test and determined that while the production of nuclear energy and its attendant safety concerns are within federal jurisdiction, the fabrication and installation of the monorail is not integral to the federal undertaking.

Having found it had jurisdiction, the Board directed Ontario Hydro to assign the work to the applicants based on collective agreements and historical practice.

The union referred several grievances to arbitration, alleging that the municipal employer violated the subcontracting provision of the collective agreement by engaging outside contractors not in contractual relations with the union.

The Board interpreted the subcontracting provision, which was imposed during first contract arbitration, as restricting the employer's ability to let subcontracts but not prime contracts.

Applying this distinction, the Board dismissed five of the six grievances, finding that the contracts in question were either prime contracts, involved maintenance rather than construction work, or did not involve work covered by the collective agreement.

One grievance was allowed, as the Board found the contract was in the nature of a subcontract for work that would otherwise have been performed by the employer's own employees.

The union filed a grievance against the employer for violating the subcontracting provision of the provincial collective agreement by subcontracting final clean-up work to a non-union company.

In a prior decision, the Board found the employer liable.

In this remedy phase, the employer argued the union must prove that a union subcontractor had the specific expertise and equipment to perform the work.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the union only needed to prove it had unemployed members available to perform the work, which it did.

The Board found the union entitled to damages for lost work opportunities and directed the parties to finalize the calculations.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act.

The responding employer sought to lead evidence that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights.

The union raised preliminary objections, arguing that the issue of abandonment was res judicata based on a prior Board decision and that abandonment cannot occur during the initial term of a collective agreement.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding that the prior decision did not determine the abandonment issue and that abandonment could theoretically occur during an initial term.

The hearing was directed to proceed on the merits of the abandonment issue.

The applicant Ironworkers Local 700 filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work on a material handling system at the D.N.N. Hot Dip Galvanizing Line #1 in Windsor, Ontario.

The Board held a consultation and determined that the work in dispute was a completely integrated material handling system, not merely a conveyor system or production equipment.

Having regard to prevailing area practice and previous Board decisions, the Board ordered that the work be assigned to a composite crew consisting of equal numbers of Ironworkers and Millwrights performing the work functions interchangeably.

The order was made binding on all named parties and applied to future jobs undertaken in Board Area #1.

The applicants filed a complaint concerning a work assignment dispute between the Carpenters and the Labourers regarding the carpentry portion of concrete forming work for outdoor structures on three construction projects.

The Labourers argued the work fell within a distinct 'landscaping sector' and requested a sector determination hearing.

The Board declined to hold a separate hearing, finding it could determine the sector issue within the consultation process.

The Board concluded the work was in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector and declined to recognize a separate landscaping sector.

Relying on a trade agreement between the unions and area practice, the Board directed that the work be assigned to the Carpenters.

The Ironworkers filed a jurisdictional complaint against Comstock Canada and the Millwrights regarding the assignment of work related to material handling systems.

Prior to the consultation, the Ironworkers and the employer settled, but the Millwrights did not.

The Board ruled that the consultation would proceed because a jurisdictional dispute between the two unions still existed.

The Board determined that the work in dispute included the entire chain of work, from dismantling to installation.

Ultimately, the Board directed that the work be assigned to a composite crew consisting of equal numbers of Ironworkers and Millwrights, performing all functions interchangeably, and made the order binding on future jobs in Board Area #1.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the responding party general contractor violated the provincial collective agreement by subcontracting final cleanup work on a construction project to a non-union company.

The general contractor argued the final cleanup was maintenance work outside the construction industry.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board upheld the grievance, finding that the final cleanup work was necessitated by the construction project and was part of the overall construction work undertaken by the general contractor.

The Board concluded the work was covered by the collective agreement and the general contractor violated the subcontracting clause.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance alleging that the responding employer violated the collective agreement by assigning the installation of modular office wall panels to another union without holding a proper mark-up meeting.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer breached the collective agreement by failing to follow the required mark-up procedures before commencing the work.

However, the Board declined to award damages for loss of opportunity because the applicant failed to provide evidence that it had unemployed members ready and available to perform the work at the relevant time.

A dissenting board member would have awarded damages, taking judicial notice of high unemployment in the construction trades.

The Ontario Sheet Metal Workers filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint in response to a grievance by the Carpenters claiming work related to the installation of sheet metal siding onto wood at a Sarnia job site.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board confirmed the employer's assignment of the work to the Sheet Metal Workers, finding that the nature of the material (sheet metal) was more significant than the base (wood), and that employer practice and efficiency favoured the Sheet Metal Workers.

The Board also made several procedural rulings, including excluding area practice evidence from the Carpenters due to a failure to provide adequate particulars, and refusing to terminate the proceedings after the Carpenters withdrew their underlying grievance.

The applicant employers filed a complaint concerning a work assignment dispute under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent Carpenters union requested that the Board defer the proceedings to private arbitration pursuant to an agreement between the Carpenters and the Labourers union.

The Board declined to defer the proceedings, noting that the applicant employers were not bound by the inter-union agreement and that proceeding before the Board would minimize the duplication of proceedings and ensure all interested parties could participate.

The applicant union filed an application for certification to displace the incumbent union.

During the application process, the employer and the incumbent union negotiated and signed a renewal collective agreement.

The applicant argued that this violated the statutory freeze under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act and constituted unlawful employer support under section 49.

The Board held that the statutory freeze does not suspend the duty to bargain between an employer and an incumbent union.

The negotiation and conclusion of a renewal agreement do not, in and of themselves, violate the freeze or constitute unlawful employer support.

The application for certification was dismissed as untimely.

The Ironworkers filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint against Ontario Hydro and the United Association regarding the assignment of work related to the removal and replacement of feedwater heaters at the Lakeview Thermal Generating Station.

The Board dismissed preliminary motions by the United Association to defer to The Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes, and by the Ironworkers to enforce the 1958 Cooper-Connolly trade agreement, finding the latter had been validly repudiated in 1981.

On the merits, the Board relied primarily on employer and area past practice.

It directed that the fabrication and installation of the structural steel floor falsework deck and track runway be assigned to the Ironworkers.

The Board divided the signalling and rigging work between the two trades, assigning the handling of piping equipment using power equipment to the Ironworkers, and the lateral movement and final installation using tools of the trade to the United Association.

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of construction operators and drivers.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing the union, which, if voluntary, would normally prompt a representation vote.

The Board found that the employee who circulated the petition had recently been promoted to a 'working foreman' position, complete with a white hard hat and a company truck.

Because he circulated the petition while exercising these new managerial trappings and in the presence of actual management, the Board concluded that employees would reasonably perceive him as acting on behalf of the employer.

The petition was therefore given no weight, and the union was certified without a vote.

During a union certification campaign, the respondent employer alleged that an employee did not pay the required one dollar for union membership, claiming a union organizer paid it instead.

The employee testified she paid the dollar, but admitted to making prior inconsistent statements suggesting she had not.

The Board declined to rely on the prior inconsistent statements as evidence of the truth of their contents, finding them unreliable and noting the general legal rule against such reliance.

With no affirmative evidence that the dollar was not paid, the Board dismissed the non-pay allegation.

The applicant union filed an application for certification in the construction industry and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

Following the vote, disputes arose regarding voter eligibility.

The Board determined that 31 employees were eligible to vote, and the vote resulted in 30 votes for the intervener and none for the applicant.

The applicant also filed a second application for certification and requested consolidation, section 8 relief, and reconsideration of voter eligibility rulings, all of which the Board denied.

The respondent and intervener requested a bar on the second application, which the Board also denied.

As the applicant did not receive more than fifty percent of the votes, the application for certification was dismissed.

The complainant filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of pneumatic instrumentation work.

During the hearing, the respondent union brought several motions.

The Board dismissed motions alleging the panel was compromised and that the issues were res judicata.

However, the Board granted the respondent's motion to prevent the complainant from amending its complaint to seek a remedy affecting electronic instrumentation work.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act because no demand had been made for the electronic work, and alternatively, the amendment request was untimely and would fundamentally alter the case.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer argued that the grievance should be dismissed due to delay, laches, and the abandonment of bargaining rights prior to the introduction of province-wide bargaining.

The Board found that while Local 493 had delayed in asserting its rights, Local 607 had not abandoned its bargaining rights, meaning the employer was bound to the province-wide ICI collective agreement.

However, due to Local 493's inordinate delay and failure to enforce its rights, which lulled the employer into believing it was not bound, the Board held that the union was estopped from asserting its rights in this specific grievance.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicants filed complaints regarding a work assignment dispute, alleging unfair labour practices under section 89 and seeking enforcement of a jurisdictional dispute settlement under section 91(14) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents raised preliminary objections, arguing the section 89 complaint failed to disclose a prima facie case and the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14).

The Board dismissed the section 89 complaint, finding it was essentially a work assignment dispute.

However, the Board held it had jurisdiction to entertain the section 91(14) complaint because the Plan Administrator had made a clear decision.

The Board deferred consideration of the section 91(1) complaint until the section 91(14) matter was resolved.

The applicant union filed a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a work assignment currently being performed by the intervener union.

The Board determined that the grievance was essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment.

The Board adjourned the section 124 application to allow the parties to file a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Act, directing that both matters be listed and heard together if a jurisdictional dispute is filed.