Stephen Wahl

The applicant union sought the Board's consent to institute a prosecution against the respondent employer for allegedly denying a union official access to the respondent's premises on January 21 and 22, 1987, in breach of a prior Board order issued under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Board found the applicant established a prima facie case of the alleged breaches and granted consent to prosecute.

The applicant union requested that the Board defer hearing the merits of a work assignment complaint until it determined, under section 150 of the Labour Relations Act, which sector of the construction industry the disputed work fell into.

The respondents and intervener opposed the deferral, arguing the sector issue should be decided alongside the merits.

The Board agreed with the applicant, finding that the sector determination was integral to the complaint and could involve other parties with standing.

The Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer to identify parties for the sector determination and directed that the same panel hear both the sector issue and the merits.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A group of employees filed a petition objecting to the certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board assessed the voluntariness of the petition and found it inadmissible due to the involvement of a working foreman, who was perceived by employees as having managerial authority.

As the union demonstrated membership support of over fifty-five percent, the Board granted the application and issued certificates for the appropriate bargaining units.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondents in the construction industry.

The Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote, and the ballots were segregated pending the resolution of several issues, including whether the applicant is an affiliated bargaining agent and whether the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

The intervener argued that other building trades unions should receive notice of the proceedings because their bargaining rights might be affected.

The Board consolidated the applications, severed the affiliated bargaining agent issue to be decided first, and directed the respondents to provide information on whether they employed any other trades on the application date to determine if notice to other unions is required.

The complainants, members of IBEW Local 105, alleged that the respondents violated the Labour Relations Act by performing industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector construction work under a maintenance agreement rather than the provincial agreement.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainants lacked standing because they were not employees in the bargaining unit, had not worked under the agreement, and had not been refused employment.

Consequently, their interests were too remote to establish a violation of the Act.

In a hearing to determine damages following a successful grievance referral under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, the respondent requested an adjournment pending a judicial review of a related employer decision.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting the delay was solely attributable to the respondent.

During the hearing, the respondent's president refused to answer relevant questions regarding the construction jobs in issue, despite being directed to do so by the Board.

The Board warned the witness that his refusal could constitute contempt in the face of the Board, which carries penalties including imprisonment.

The Board adjourned the proceeding to allow the witness to consult with counsel before determining the contempt issue.

The Board considered a referral of a grievance to arbitration and a complaint over an assignment of work regarding concrete forming work at the Kipling Acres Home for the Aged.

The parties disputed whether the work was in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector.

The Board decided to defer further consideration of the matters until February 16, 1987, to allow an Industrial Inquiry Commissioner to attempt to mediate a resolution to the broader dispute between the Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders' Association and various unions over concrete forming work.

The applicant applied for accreditation under section 125 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued an interim decision confirming a unanimous oral ruling establishing general guidelines for determining the composition of the employer unit and the related lists of employers and employees.

The Board set out criteria for deciding whether the respondent held bargaining rights in the sewers and watermains sector in Board area #8 and the scope of the work encompassed by the unit of employers.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised preliminary objections regarding the applicant's standing, the appropriateness of the geographic area, and the lack of notice to employees and another union local.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding the applicant had standing and that notice was properly given.

The parties subsequently reached an agreement settling the appropriate bargaining unit and adjourning the related employer application.

The Board issued certificates to the applicant based on the agreed bargaining unit and membership evidence.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer applied the wrong collective agreement to fire damage restoration work at a refinery.

The employer had applied the maintenance agreement, while the union argued the construction agreement should apply.

The Board found that the repair of the fire-damaged unit, which had ceased to function, constituted work in the construction industry under s. 1(1)(f) of the Labour Relations Act.

Because the work was in the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector, only the provincial construction agreement could apply pursuant to s. 146(2) of the Act.

The Board rejected the employer's arguments that the union was estopped from claiming damages due to past practice or undue delay.

The grievance was allowed, and the Board remained seized of the damages quantum.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of the respondent's employees.

The union filed acceptable membership evidence for over 70 percent of the employees in the unit at the time of the application, exceeding the 55 percent required for automatic certification.

The respondent employer requested that the Board exercise its discretion to order a representation vote due to a planned build-up of the workforce from 70 to 156 employees.

The Board applied its established build-up principles, noting that even at the halfway point of the projected build-up, the union would likely maintain support of approximately 65 percent of the employees.

Consequently, the Board declined to order a representation vote and granted outright certification to the applicant.

The Board heard a request for reconsideration of an oral ruling regarding notice to laid-off employees, which was dismissed as the issue had already been considered.

The Board also addressed a dispute over a Labour Relations Officer's report where the respondent sought to challenge an agreed exclusion after previously confirming the report's accuracy.

The Board ruled that parties cannot make submissions contrary to their written representations filed in response to the report, and struck the disputed employee from the list.

The parties agreed to submit written arguments on the remaining issues.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that Ontario Hydro violated the collective agreement by contracting with 3-L Filters Limited for the supply of equipment. 3-L Filters Limited sought standing to intervene in the arbitration proceedings, arguing that its commercial interests and proprietary rights would be directly affected if the union succeeded.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for standing, holding that a third party not bound by the collective agreement is not entitled to intervene as of right, and that the Board's discretion to permit intervention should only be exercised where special labour relations circumstances exist, which were not present in this case.

The applicant union sought a declaration that there had been a sale of a business or that the respondents were one employer under the Labour Relations Act.

As a preliminary issue, the Board considered whether the union held bargaining rights for ironworkers employed by the respondent Hayman, which would bind Hayman to the current provincial agreement.

The Board found that the union's bargaining rights, if any, existed prior to the application for accreditation by the employers' association.

Since Hayman was not named in the certificate of accreditation and the union did not acquire bargaining rights subsequent to the application date, Hayman was not bound to the provincial agreement by virtue of the certificate.

The applicant union brought a preliminary motion regarding the filings made by the respondent in a series of certification applications.

The applicant argued that an agreement on the parties' respective positions had been reached before the Labour Relations Officer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the motion, finding that no such agreement was reached and that the Board had subsequently appointed an Officer to inquire into the list and composition of the bargaining unit.

The Board directed that the applications proceed based on the positions taken at the commencement of the Officer's inquiry.

The complainants, members of the respondent trade union, alleged that the union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act by acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in its operation of the hiring hall.

Specifically, they complained about five instances where members were referred to work out of order from the out-of-work list.

The Board found that the business manager's policy of referring the best qualified members to act as stewards, regardless of their position on the list, had a rational basis and was not applied improperly.

Other out-of-order referrals were justified by a grievance settlement and an employer's specific request for a short-term emergency job.

The complaint was dismissed.

During a lengthy hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the employer representative on the panel became too ill to continue.

The parties could not agree on whether to substitute the incapacitated member or how to proceed.

The Board held that, unlike other statutes, the Labour Relations Act does not contain a provision allowing the Board to replace a panel member who is unable to complete their duties due to illness.

Absent the consent of all parties, the Board lacked jurisdiction to substitute the member or continue with the remaining two members.

Consequently, the Board directed that the complaint be heard de novo before a new panel.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged from her employment as a waitress at a Swiss Chalet restaurant because of her support for the union, contrary to section 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer contended that the grievor was a probationary employee who was discharged for complaining about cleaning duties and interfering with other employees' work.

The Board found that the employer's evidence regarding the reasons for discharge was contradictory and lacked credibility.

Applying the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, the Board concluded that the employer failed to prove that the discharge was not tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered the grievor reinstated with compensation.

During a hearing into allegations of unlawful picketing, the complainant called an adverse party as a witness and sought to cross-examine him as of right, relying on Rule 53.07 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to adopt the civil rule, holding that it would instead apply the common law discretion to permit leading questions or cross-examination only if the witness demonstrates hostility or an unwillingness to answer.

The Board also ruled that section 9 of the Ontario Evidence Act does not prevent the witness's answers from being used against him in the very proceeding in which he is testifying, as the statutory protection against self-incrimination applies only to independent contemporaneous or subsequent proceedings.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union violated section 69 of the Labour Relations Act regarding hiring hall referrals and denial of information.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing the complainant was improperly expanding the scope of the original complaint.

The Board ruled that it would hear evidence on the alleged denial of information and the complainant's qualifications as a cement finisher, but dismissed challenges to referrals that did not affect the complainant's statutory rights.

Consideration of certain other referrals was deferred.