Stephen Wahl

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of electricians in the construction industry.

The Board held that because the trade of electrician is a compulsory certified trade under the Apprenticeship and Tradesmen's Qualification Act, the bargaining unit must be described in terms of journeyman and apprentice electricians.

Persons who are neither qualified journeymen nor apprentices cannot lawfully work in the trade and share no community of interest, and were therefore excluded from the bargaining unit for the purpose of the certification application.

The Board found that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant and directed that the hearing continue on outstanding issues.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The Board had to determine whether the 'Gilvesy test' applied to determine which employees should be included in the bargaining unit for the purpose of the count, particularly concerning off-site mechanics under section 117(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that the Gilvesy test applies, meaning employees must have spent a majority of their time on the date of application performing bargaining unit work.

The Board found no conflict between this test and section 117(b).

Applying this test, the Board determined the status of six disputed individuals, including some on the list of employees and excluding others based on their duties on the application date.

The applicant union applied for certification for a construction industry bargaining unit of labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued that its primary business of repairing concrete cracks in underground parking garages was maintenance, not construction, and therefore the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act did not apply.

The Board applied the test from Master Insulators' and determined that the work involved restoring the waterproofing capacity of structures that had ceased to function properly, which constitutes repair rather than maintenance.

Consequently, the work fell within the construction industry, and the Board issued certificates to the applicant.

The complainant union (IAM) filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of maintenance work on 16 systems at the employer's mill to the respondent union (IBEW).

The IAM argued that the work, which involved electronic instrumentation, fell within its jurisdiction due to technological changes from pneumatic and hydraulic systems.

After the IAM completed its case, the IBEW brought a motion for non-suit.

The Board reviewed the evidence and the collective agreements, finding that the IAM's agreement covered pneumatic, hydraulic, and fluidic instrumentation, while the IBEW's agreement covered electronic instrumentation.

The Board concluded that the IAM failed to establish a prima facie case that the work was improperly assigned, granted the non-suit motion, and dismissed the complaint.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent unions argued that a settlement had been reached between the unions.

The Board found that the complainant's written offer of settlement was conditional upon the approval of a third-party employer association.

Furthermore, the respondent union made a counter-offer which nullified the original offer, and the original offer was withdrawn before any valid acceptance.

The Board concluded that no settlement had been reached and directed that the hearing on the merits of the jurisdictional dispute continue.

The Board also denied a request by the Acoustical Association of Ontario to be added as a party.

During a consolidated hearing for union certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, the Ontario Labour Relations Board made several preliminary rulings.

The Board refused to exclude part-time employees and students from the bargaining unit, noting the employer had no history of employing them, despite the plant having only been open for a few months.

The Board also included quality control employees in the unit, finding they shared a community of interest with production employees.

Over the union's objection, the Board ordered the disclosure of the membership card count to ensure all parties understood the case to be met.

Finally, the Board directed the employer to call its evidence first, followed by the objecting employees, and then the union.

During a union certification hearing, the employer brought a motion requesting that the panel chair disqualify herself due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The motion was based on a comment the chair made regarding the authenticity of a signature on a counter-petition.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the objective test for reasonable apprehension of bias and concluded that a reasonably well-informed person would not apprehend bias, as the comment merely indicated the trend of the evidence and the chair explicitly assured counsel they would have an opportunity to challenge it.

The motion was dismissed and the hearing was ordered to continue.

The complainants filed a work assignment complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work functions associated with a new High Impact Welding process on a pipeline construction project.

The work had been assigned to the respondent union and others.

The Board considered criteria including collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, area past practice, and economy and efficiency.

The Board directed that the work be divided, assigning tasks related to explosives handling and detonation to the complainants, and tasks related to pipe preparation, belling, and final wiping to the respondent union.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer failed to apply the provincial ICI agreement to construction projects in Cambridge.

The employer argued it was only bound by a local multi-sector formwork agreement in the London area.

The Board found that the local formwork agreement, insofar as it purported to apply to the ICI sector, was null and void under section 146(2) of the Act.

Consequently, the local agreement did not create provincial ICI bargaining rights that the applicant could rely upon.

The grievances were dismissed.

The applicant union sought relief under section 63 and subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a masonry subcontractor sold its business to a related real estate development company or that the two entities constituted a single employer.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding no sale of a business as there was no continuation of the predecessor's business, and finding that the entities were not under common control or direction despite a familial relationship between their principals.

The Board also dismissed a motion to find the principal of the predecessor company in contempt, as he had purged his initial contempt by subsequently answering all relevant questions.

The complainant union applied for an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act regarding a jurisdictional dispute over the dismantling, transport, and reassembly of shelving.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union threatened an unlawful strike if the work was not reassigned to its members, resulting in the layoff of labourers.

The Board declined to make an interim order because the disputed work was scheduled to be completed by the end of the business day, rendering any order academic.

The complainants, operators of a newsprint mill, filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of repair and maintenance work on a new computer technology system (the Moore Mycro Stock Proportioning System).

The work was assigned to instrument mechanics represented by Local 89, which was challenged by maintenance electricians represented by Local 1149.

The Board applied established criteria for resolving jurisdictional disputes, including employer preference, employer practice, collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, and economy and efficiency.

Finding that the system was primarily for process control rather than motor control, and that instrument mechanics possessed the necessary specialized training and experience, the Board directed that the work continue to be assigned to Local 89.

The complainant employer filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a work assignment to the Ironworkers, which was grieved by the Millwrights.

The respondents argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) because the collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (the Plan).

The dispute had been referred to the Plan, but the Plan declined to make a determination because the work was already completed.

The Board held that the Plan's application of its time limits did not mean it failed to entertain the dispute.

Because the collective agreements provided for a mutually selected tribunal that was functioning, section 91(14) deprived the Board of jurisdiction.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant employers' organization applied for accreditation in the construction industry under section 125 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the applicant was a properly constituted employers' organization and that the proposed unit of employers was appropriate for collective bargaining.

The Board determined that the applicant represented a majority of the employers in the unit, who in turn employed a majority of the employees affected.

Although all statutory requirements for accreditation were met, the Board withheld the issuance of the certificate pending a determination on whether it would continue its practice of compiling a Final Schedule 'F' of employers.

The complainants, including an employers' organization and two individual contractors, filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the Provincial Employer Bargaining Agency - Labourers violated section 151(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents raised preliminary objections.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that section 151(2) imposes a duty on the employer bargaining agency to represent individual employers, not constituent employers' organizations.

As the complaint did not plead facts showing how the individual contractors were adversely affected, and no duty was owed to the employers' organization, the complaint failed to establish a violation of the Act.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent company violated the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally starting a new apprentice electrician at the third-year rate, bypassing the Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee.

The company brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board to defer the matter to arbitration.

The Board found that the essence of the complaint involved the interpretation of the collective agreement and the scope of the Joint Committee's duties.

Concluding that the dispute was primarily contractual and that arbitration was an adequate and appropriate forum, the Board granted the motion, deferred to the arbitration process, and declined to hear the complaint on its merits.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether to issue new designation orders or amend existing ones under the provincial bargaining sections of the Labour Relations Act.

The referral arose after a previous Board decision found that Local 2693 was an affiliated bargaining agent and thus prohibited from entering into non-provincial agreements for construction labourers in the ICI sector.

The Board reviewed the history of Local 2693, the statutory framework for provincial bargaining, and several options available to the Minister.

A majority of the panel recommended that the Minister not alter the existing status quo to promote stability in provincial bargaining, while the Vice-Chair dissented, favouring the preservation of Local 2693's historical bargaining rights.

The applicant union sought certification for various groups of employees of the respondent construction contractor.

The Board resolved challenges to the bargaining unit descriptions and employee lists.

The Board found that the Asphalt Plant Foreman did not exercise managerial functions and was an employee within the bargaining unit.

The Board also determined that three challenged drivers belonged to a different bargaining unit based on where they reported to work.

The Board concluded that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

The applicant sought a declaration that its collective agreement with Local 2693 was unlawful and void under the Labour Relations Act, as Local 2693 was an affiliated bargaining agent and the agreement was not a provincial agreement.

Local 2693 requested an adjournment pending a Ministerial designation or reconsideration of a prior Board decision that found it to be an affiliated bargaining agent.

The Board denied the adjournment.

Applying the doctrine of res judicata, the Board held that the prior decision determining Local 2693's status was a decision in rem and therefore binding.

Consequently, the Board declared the collective agreement unlawful, null, and void.

The applicant union sought a declaration that Stucor Construction Ltd. was bound to the Operating Engineers Provincial Agreement as a result of a sale of a business from Stewart & Hinan Contractors Limited, or alternatively, that the entities were related employers.

The predecessor business was liquidated when one partner retired, and the remaining partner started a new, smaller general contracting business (Stucor) using some of the predecessor's assets, key management personnel, and its name.

The Board found that the transfer of management skills, expertise, and some physical assets constituted a sale of part of a business within the meaning of section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

Stucor was declared bound by the collective agreement.