Stephen Wahl

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

Following the vote, the applicant sought to enlarge the bargaining unit description to include the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, a claim it had previously withdrawn.

The respondent employer and intervener union objected to this expansion.

The Board held that while the expanded unit would normally be appropriate in a displacement application, the applicant could not change its position and enlarge the unit after the parties had met to review the employee list and the vote had been taken based on the narrower unit.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit to be the narrower unit originally sought and directed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the list of eligible voters.

The complainants filed a complaint under section 85(2) of the Labour Relations Act alleging that a financial statement furnished by the respondent union official was inadequate.

At the hearing, the respondent argued the matter had been settled.

The Board found that the complainants' former counsel and the respondent's counsel had reached a binding oral settlement agreement, which the complainants later attempted to repudiate.

Emphasizing the importance of settlements in labour relations, the Board exercised its discretion to decline to inquire further into the complaint and dismissed it.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act concerning a work assignment dispute.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the grievance was untimely under the collective agreement.

The Board found that the grievance was untimely, as it was filed more than 60 days after the disputed work was completed.

However, the Board exercised its discretion under section 44(6) of the Act to extend the time limits, finding that the delay was caused by a reasonable mistake regarding the proper grieving party, the employer was aware of the ongoing dispute, and resolving the grievance would benefit the parties' relationship.

The applicant union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration under section 40a of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties had resolved all issues except for a subcontracting provision.

During bargaining, the respondent municipality stated it did not intend to hire members of the applicant union, as it felt obligated to assign the work to its own employees represented by another union (CUPE).

The Board found that the municipality's approach, combined with its refusal to agree to a subcontracting provision, constituted a refusal to recognize the bargaining authority of the applicant union.

The Board directed that the first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

In a jurisdictional dispute complaint between the Boilermakers and the Labourers regarding demolition work, the Labourers sought to adduce viva voce evidence on a preliminary basis to challenge the Board's earlier ruling on the parameters of admissible past practice evidence.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that it has inherent jurisdiction to determine the relevance of evidence without first hearing it, and that evidence regarding the demolition of structures other than field-erected, steam-generating boilers in an operating environment is irrelevant to the specific work in dispute.

The union referred a grievance and applied for a related employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against Fox and Spencer.

Fox, a unionized employer, subcontracted ironwork to Spencer, a non-unionized related company, which then employed union members but calculated commuting allowances from a different centre to save costs.

The Board found Fox and Spencer were related employers and declared them a single employer effective from the date the grievance was filed.

The Board held that the employers breached the collective agreement regarding commuting allowances and were liable for damages, rejecting the employers' estoppel defence.

The Carpenters' Union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer and the Labourers' Union conspired to undermine its bargaining rights by assigning formwork to labourers instead of carpenters.

The Labourers' Union also applied for certification to displace the Carpenters' bargaining rights.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment rather than a derogation of bargaining rights, which should be resolved under the jurisdictional dispute provisions of the Act.

Regarding the certification application, the Board found that at least three persons were employed as carpenters on the application date, entitling the Labourers' Union to a pre-hearing vote.

The applicant union council referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer violated the Pipeline Agreement by assigning swamper work to a member of the Teamsters instead of a labourer.

The Teamsters intervened, arguing the grievance was a jurisdictional dispute and that the applicant lacked status to grieve.

The Board found that the applicant was not a party to the Pipeline Agreement, which was strictly between the International union and the employer association.

Because the applicant was merely an affiliated bargaining agent and not a party to the specific collective agreement, it had no status to bring or refer the grievance.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a declaration that four related companies in the glazing and door business constituted a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, and alleged various unfair labour practices including an unlawful lockout.

The respondents failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board found that the companies were under common direction and control, and that work had been deliberately diverted from the unionized entities to a newly created non-union entity to undermine bargaining rights.

The Board declared the companies a single employer bound by the collective agreements, ordered payment of unpaid remittances and damages for diverted bargaining unit work, and found the respondents had violated sections 64 and 66 of the Act by locking out union members and offering them work only if they agreed to work non-union.

The complainant Carpenters union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of sheet metal siding installation at the Bruce Nuclear Power Development.

Ontario Hydro had assigned the work to the Sheet Metal Workers.

The Board considered criteria including area practice and employer past practice, noting that 99.9% of sheet metal siding in the area was installed by sheet metal workers.

The Board upheld Ontario Hydro's assignment to the Sheet Metal Workers and declined to make the direction provincial in scope.

The Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' and Roofers' Conference and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 539 sought reconsideration of a procedural direction by the Board.

The Board had directed that the issue of whether the Carpenters held bargaining rights with Vic West Steel be determined in a section 124 grievance proceeding before proceeding with the Sheet Metal Workers' section 91 jurisdictional dispute complaint.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision, finding that resolving the bargaining rights issue first could significantly alter the perspective of the jurisdictional dispute and potentially reduce costs and delay.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to refer him to a job as a mason tender.

The union's hiring hall system referred members based on their position on the out-of-work list and their listed skills.

The complainant was not listed as a mason tender and had not requested to be listed as such.

The Board found that the union's referral system was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant trade union referred several grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employers violated the collective agreement by assigning certain work to composite crews of millwrights and ironworkers.

The intervener ironworkers' union argued that the grievances were essentially jurisdictional disputes and should be deferred or dismissed.

The Board held that it had jurisdiction to hear the section 124 referrals but, in accordance with its usual practice, decided to first entertain the jurisdictional dispute complaint filed under section 91 before proceeding with the grievances.

In a grievance arbitration concerning the termination of a crane operator for an alleged failure to follow safe operating procedures resulting in a crane upset, both parties issued summonses duces tecum demanding the production of various documents.

The respondents objected to producing records for all cranes across the province, arguing it was an improper discovery attempt.

The Board applied the test that documents sought via a summons need only be 'arguably relevant' to the issues.

The Board directed the respondents to produce specific reports, log books, and policies related to the incident and the specific crane involved, but declined to order province-wide records or the union's training records at this preliminary stage, finding them overly broad or not yet demonstrably relevant.

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

The parties had previously signed an Officer's Report agreeing that there was one employee in the bargaining unit on the application date.

At the hearing, the union attempted to resile from this agreement, arguing there were no employees in the unit.

The Board held the union to its agreement, emphasizing the importance of settlement documents.

The Board also found the petition supporting the application to be voluntary, despite the applicant's consultation with a fellow employee and the use of a company bulletin board to announce a meeting.

A representation vote was ordered.

During a hearing into a work assignment dispute between the Millwrights and Ironworkers regarding the installation of a monorail conveyor system, a preliminary issue arose concerning the scope of admissible past practice evidence.

The Board had previously limited past practice evidence to the installation of monorail and package conveyor systems.

When the Ironworkers sought to adduce evidence regarding work on a bridge crane to demonstrate economy and efficiency, the Millwrights objected.

The Board upheld the objection, ruling that evidence of economy and efficiency from other employers must relate specifically to the two types of conveyor systems in dispute to be relevant and admissible.

The applicant union referred grievances to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent employers violated the collective agreement by reducing their hourly remittances to the union's benefit fund.

The employers argued that the enactment of the Employer Health Tax Act, which eliminated OHIP premiums and imposed a payroll tax, frustrated the collective agreement and resulted in unjust enrichment for the fund, as the fund no longer had to pay OHIP premiums.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the collective agreement required a fixed hourly remittance and did not allocate a specific portion to OHIP premiums.

The Board found no frustration of contract or unjust enrichment, and ordered the employers to remit the full amounts owed with interest.

The applicant union alleged a lockout and sought relief under section 135 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties had previously entered into a written interim settlement agreement regarding a work assignment dispute.

The applicant alleged the respondents breached this agreement.

The respondents argued the Board lacked jurisdiction and that the agreement had expired.

The Board found it had jurisdiction under section 89(7) of the Act to enforce the settlement, determined the agreement was not time-limited, and ordered the respondents to comply with the agreed-upon work assignment.

The applicants sought a declaration under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondent was a successor employer to a sole proprietorship following a sale of business in 1957.

The respondents argued that the statutory provisions, which were enacted in 1963 and 1971 respectively, could not be applied retrospectively.

The Board held that the presumption against retrospectivity applied because the provisions attached new consequences to a past event and did not merely declare a current status.

The Board further found that the provisions were not purely protective of the public in a manner that would rebut the presumption.

The applications were dismissed.

The union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees sought reconsideration of a prior Board decision finding their petitions opposing certification to be untimely.

The Board allowed the reconsideration, finding the petitions were timely as they were deposited with Canada Post on the terminal date, despite bearing the next day's registration stamp.

However, upon inquiring into the voluntariness of the petitions, the Board found they were not a voluntary expression of employee wishes.

The petitions were initiated and circulated by a working foreman who was perceived to be acting on behalf of the employer and who made threats regarding job security.

As the petitions were given no weight, the union was entitled to certification.