The Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court has dismissed an application for judicial review by the Canadian Union of Skilled Workers (CUSW) seeking to have Four Seasons Site Development and Westport Paving declared as related employers under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (LRA).
The court upheld the Ontario Labour Relations Board’s (OLRB) decisions from Nov. 30, 2022, and Oct. 23, 2023, which found that granting such a declaration would improperly expand the union’s existing bargaining rights.
Background
The dispute arose from Four Seasons and Westport’s involvement in installing electrical infrastructure for the Toronto Transit Commission’s (TTC) Presto fare payment system. Four Seasons, a company specializing in road construction in the Greater Toronto Area, subcontracted electrical work for the Presto project to various firms, including Westport. Prior to this project, Westport had not employed any electricians or electricians’ apprentices.
On April 13, 2016, CUSW filed an application for certification seeking to represent electricians employed by both Four Seasons and Westport. Four Seasons contested the application, stating it did not employ electricians and was not related to Westport under section 1(4) of the LRA. The parties eventually settled, and the application proceeded uncontested against Westport alone. CUSW was certified as the bargaining agent for electricians employed by Westport on April 3, 2017.
Subsequently, CUSW filed a related employer application under section 1(4) of the LRA, seeking a declaration that Four Seasons and Westport were under common control and direction, effectively treating them as one employer for labour relations purposes.
OLRB’s decisions
The OLRB found that while the three prerequisites for a related employer declaration under section 1(4) were met—multiple entities involved, related activities or businesses carried on, and common control or direction—the declaration was not warranted. The Board noted, “There has been no erosion of CUSW’s bargaining rights. Four Seasons’ operations predate Westport’s. Nothing has changed… with respect to how it gets its electrical work done.”
The Board emphasized that granting the declaration would result in an expansion of CUSW’s bargaining rights into areas where Westport had never been involved, particularly electrical work on road construction projects. The Board concluded, “Not only is there no erosion of bargaining rights, there is no possibility of such an erosion.”
CUSW’s request for reconsideration was also denied. The Board stated that the union’s arguments amounted to an attempt to “relitigate an issue dealt with in the hearing on the merits,” which is not permissible in a reconsideration request.
Divisional court’s ruling
Justice R. A. Lococo, writing for a unanimous panel, dismissed the judicial review application. The court held that the OLRB’s decisions were reasonable and fell within the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction under the LRA. The court noted, “The Board’s exercise of that discretion is accorded considerable deference.”
Addressing CUSW’s main argument—that the Board failed to engage with the union’s concerns about economic dominance and the need to bargain with the entity holding economic control—the court found that the Board had adequately considered these issues. The court stated, “The Board specifically referenced the Union’s economic dominance argument… as well as the Union’s rejection of Four Seasons’ submissions relating to erosion/expansion of bargaining rights.”
The court concluded that the Board was not required to address every aspect of the union’s argument in detail and that its reasons were sufficient. “Reading the Decisions as a whole, the Union has not established that the Decisions were unreasonable,” Justice Lococo wrote.
For more information, see Canadian Union of Skilled Workers v. Four Seasons Site Development Ltd., 2024 ONSC 6398 (CanLII).
