B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 21, 1985

Curatorial department heads do not exercise managerial functions and are included in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought certification for curatorial staff and professional librarians.

The respondent museum argued that 18 curatorial department heads should be excluded as they exercised managerial functions under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the department heads functioned more like lead hands or university department heads in a collegial model, lacking independent discretion over hiring, firing, or discipline.

The Board concluded they did not exercise managerial functions and included them in the bargaining unit, granting a final certificate.

Royal Ontario Museum Curatorial Association v. The Royal Ontario Museum, 1985 CanLII 911

Sheila Mcintyre

4 cases1984–1985

S. C. Bernardo

42 cases1980–2001

Pearl McKay

Julie Goodbaum

Elizabeth J. Lennon

S. A. Tacon

OLRB0 cases1984–1991

J. A. Ronson

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 1, 1985

Employer violated statutory freeze by withholding wage increase and bonus after union certification.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the statutory freeze provision of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pay a minimum wage increase and a Christmas bonus to part-time employees following the union's certification.

The employer argued that the expiration of the previous collective agreement and the termination of the incumbent union's bargaining rights meant the payments were not caught by the freeze.

The Board held that the terms and conditions of employment, including the bonus and wage increase, were frozen as of the date of the certification application and continued throughout the freeze period.

The Board directed the employer to make the payments.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1000A v. Sunnybrook Foods Limited, 1985 CanLII 3655

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

Robert D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1984–1995

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 22, 1985

Complaint regarding inadequate union financial statements dismissed as lack of detail stemmed from poor internal records.

The complainant, a union member, alleged under section 85(2) of the Labour Relations Act that the audited financial statements provided by the respondent union were inadequate because they lacked a detailed breakdown of certain expenditures.

The Board found that the financial statements were prepared by a reputable accounting firm in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

The lack of detail was due to inadequate documentation in the union's own financial records, which prevented the auditors from verifying specific expenditures.

The Board concluded that the financial statements themselves were not inadequate within the meaning of the Act and dismissed the complaint.

Irene Bovay v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 16, 1985 CanLII 874

Thomas A. Stefanik

34 cases1981–2023

Ronald Gruber

4 cases1983–1987

Bernie Holmes

Robert D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1984–1995

J. A. Ronson

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 18, 1985

Union's bargaining rights terminated without a vote due to failure to commence bargaining.

The applicant employer applied under section 59(2) of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had given notice to bargain in February 1983 but failed to commence bargaining or demonstrate any continued interest in its bargaining rights.

The bargaining unit had no employees since the plant's boiler system was automated in March 1982.

The union did not reply to the application and failed to appear at the hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion to terminate the union's bargaining rights without a representation vote.

Consolidated Bathurst Packaging Limited v. International Union of Operating Engineers and its Local No. 796, 1985 CanLII 870

Roger A. Williams

Peter J. Thorup

27 cases1981–2014

Peter A. Grant

Frank Meevis

Dennis Good

J. A. Ronson

Harry Freedman

OLRB0 cases1984–2001

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 16, 1985

Union certification granted; union's letter to employees confirming membership did not invalidate documentary evidence.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer alleged irregularities in the union's membership evidence, pointing to a letter sent by the union to employees asking them to confirm their membership and payment of the $1.00 fee.

The employer argued this raised a suspicion about the evidence and requested a representation vote.

The Board held that the letter was consistent with the union taking extra precautions regarding the accuracy of its membership evidence and did not raise a suspicion.

The Board accepted the membership evidence and granted certification.

One Board member dissented, arguing a vote should have been ordered.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (U.A.W.) v. Columbus McKinnon Limited, 1985 CanLII 871

Steven L. Moate

8 cases1985–1997

Marianne Turner

J. Cameron Nelson

4 cases1985–1994

Ian S. Campbell

19 cases1985–2012

Danny Menard

J. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1987

E. Norris Davis

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 14, 1985

Application for termination of bargaining rights dismissed as premature because one year had not elapsed since certification.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights less than one year after the respondent union was certified.

The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the application was premature under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that section 61(3)(a) modified the one-year period because six months had elapsed since the commencement of a legal strike.

The Board held that the one-year protection period under section 57(1) is a minimum that cannot be shortened by section 61(3), and dismissed the application as premature.

Pat Steele v. Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers, Local 304, 1985 CanLII 887

R. 0. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–1999

J. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1987

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 10, 1985

Request for reconsideration of unfair labour practice dismissal denied; new evidence could have been obtained earlier.

The complainant requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision dismissing his unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer.

The complainant sought a new hearing to introduce new evidence, primarily in the form of affidavits obtained shortly after the original hearing.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the new evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence prior to the first hearing and that a party is not entitled to a new hearing simply to correct evidentiary inadequacies or shore up an inadequate case.

Cameron Douglas Wonch v. Rapid Ready Mix Limited, 1985 CanLII 881

Thomas A. Stefanik

34 cases1981–2023

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

Harry Freedman

OLRB0 cases1984–2001

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 18, 1984

Front desk staff excluded from hotel service bargaining units due to lack of community of interest.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent full-time and part-time employees of the respondent hotel.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit descriptions except for the inclusion of front desk staff.

The union argued that front desk staff lacked a community of interest with the service employees and should be excluded.

The respondent and objecting employees argued for their inclusion to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Board held that the front desk staff's clerical and administrative duties, along with their physical separation, demonstrated a lack of community of interest with the service unit.

The Board excluded the front desk staff from the bargaining units, with one member dissenting on the basis of undue fragmentation.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175 v. Roadside Developments Limited, 1984 CanLII 1025

T. Connolly

4 cases1984–2015

R. Dauphin

Ktr1 Ball

John Martin

4 cases1984–2023

J. Lewis

3 cases1984–1988

J. J. Nyman

14 cases1980–1992

G. Scott

2 cases1984–2012

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

N. B. Satterfield

I. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1982–1987

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 7, 1984

Interim order granted directing employer to resume composite crew assignment to avoid rewarding strike action.

The complainant union sought an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act regarding a work assignment dispute over the stripping of concrete forms.

The employer had initially assigned the work to a composite crew of labourers and carpenters.

Following a work stoppage by the carpenters, the employer reassigned the work to specific trades.

The respondent union challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing a strike was not imminent.

The Board found that the walk-out constituted a strike and that the threat of a strike remained imminent if the composite crew was reinstated.

The Board held it had jurisdiction and issued an interim order directing the employer to resume using a composite crew, emphasizing the policy objective of not rewarding work stoppages in jurisdictional disputes.

Labourers' International Union of North America Local 1036 v. Bird Construction Company Limited, 1984 CanLII 1020

W. G. Donnelly

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

M. G. Mitchnick

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 5, 1984

Registered Nursing Assistants acting as charge nurses found to be employees, not exercising managerial functions.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent nursing home argued that Registered Nursing Assistants acting as 'charge nurses' exercised managerial functions and should be excluded from the bargaining unit under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed the duties of the charge nurses, which included assigning work, training employees, and reporting on performance.

The Board found that these duties were inherent to their professional skills and did not constitute managerial functions, as they lacked the authority to make effective recommendations regarding wage increases, discipline, or termination.

The Board concluded the charge nurses were employees and certified the union.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Willows Estate Nursing Home, 1984 CanLII 1033

Martin Addario

15 cases1981–2016

John McNamee

9 cases1982–2000

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

Corinne F. Murray

OLRB0 cases1982–1985

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 23, 1984

Board declares trucking company and son's sole proprietorship related employers bound by collective agreement.

The applicant union brought applications under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of a business and/or related employer status between Harley Transport Limited, Bryan Cathcart, and Ottor Forwarders Ltd. Harley Transport had previously serviced Ottor's trucking routes but subsequently arranged for the work to be performed by Bryan Cathcart, the son of Harley Transport's president, using leased equipment.

The Board dismissed the applications with respect to Ottor Forwarders, finding no related employer status or sale of a business.

However, the Board found that Harley Transport and Bryan Cathcart were related employers under common control and direction, and that a sale of part of a business had occurred.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare them related employers bound by the collective agreement to protect the union's bargaining rights.

Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers, Local 304 v. Harley Transport Limited, 1984 CanLII 1116

Wallace M. Kenny

12 cases1980–2015

Timothy G. M. Hadwen

3 cases1984–2003

R. Ellis

Michael Fraser

2 cases1984–1986

D. Mikel burg

R. 0. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–1999

J. A. Ronson

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 17, 1984

Loss of a service contract by competitive tender does not constitute a sale of a business.

The applicant union claimed that a former contractor transferred its business to the respondent when the respondent won a competitive tender for a food services contract at a correctional centre.

The union argued that the respondent was bound by the existing collective agreement as a successor employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the loss of a contract by tender to a competitor does not constitute a sale or transfer of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, relying on its previous decision in Metropolitan Parking Inc.

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 206 v. V.S. Services Ltd., 1984 CanLII 1103

Janice Baker

29 cases1980–2000

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

M. G. Mitchnick

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 12, 1984

Foreman's conduct in portraying worker as a troublemaker for reporting safety violation constituted unlawful reprisal.

The complainant, a scoop operator, filed a complaint under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging he was penalized for reporting a serious safety violation (blasting without posting guards).

The Board found that the foreman's conduct in portraying the complainant as a troublemaker to his peers constituted intimidation and coercion in violation of the Act.

However, the Board dismissed the allegation that the complainant's subsequent transfer to another level was a reprisal, finding it was a legitimate response to a temporary redundancy.

The employer was directed to post a notice acknowledging the violation.

Bob Nault v. Inco Metals, 1984 CanLII 1094

F. W. Murray

Corinne F. Murray

OLRB0 cases1982–1985

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 27, 1984

Board imposes 4-month bar on certification applications after union withdraws its third unsuccessful application within six months.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification prior to a meeting with a Labour Relations Officer, having realized it lacked the requisite 35% membership support for a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent employer objected to the withdrawal and requested the dismissal of the application with a 10-month bar on future applications.

The Board noted that this was the third unsuccessful application within six months, which had kept the employer bound by statutory freeze provisions and caused unrest among employees.

The Board exercised its discretion to impose a 4-month bar on subsequent applications.

Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers v. The Sisters of St. Joseph of the Diocese of London in Ontario operating St. Joseph's Hospital at Sarnia, Ontario, 1984 CanLII 1130

R. O. MacDowell

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 13, 1984

Nurse clinicians do not exercise managerial functions and are employees under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant hospital applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether 'nurse clinicians' exercise managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board reviewed the duties of nurse clinicians, which primarily involved instruction, orientation, and professional evaluation, and concluded that these functions were not managerial in character.

The Board held that the nurse clinicians are employees within the meaning of the Act and are not excluded from collective bargaining.

Ottawa General Hospital v. Ontario Nurses' Association, 1984 CanLII 1125

T. F. Stone

9 cases1980–1991

R. E. Brown

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. O. MacDowell

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 11, 1984

Union certified without a vote; Board refused to exclude commission salesmen or entertain Charter objections.

The applicant union sought certification for full-time and part-time bargaining units at the respondent's retail store.

The employer and union agreed on the bargaining unit descriptions.

A group of employee objectors, representing commission salesmen, argued they should be excluded from the unit because they did not share a community of interest and did not wish to be represented by a union, citing the Charter of Rights freedom of association.

The Board held that excluding the salesmen would cause undue fragmentation and that the Charter did not require altering the appropriate bargaining unit.

The Board also dismissed unproven allegations of union misconduct during the organizing campaign.

As the union demonstrated membership support of over 55%, the Board granted certification without a vote.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL:CIO:CLC: v. Simpsons Limited, 1984 CanLII 1129

Paul Cavalluzzo

28 cases1981–2015

D. I. Wakely

11 cases1980–1989

Alick Ryder

25 cases1980–2001

M. G. Mitchnick

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 6, 1984

Applications to terminate bargaining rights dismissed where incumbent union established majority support and employees ratified agreement.

The applicant union sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the incumbent union, Local 1000A, and to certify itself as the bargaining agent for employees of a food-service contractor at Pearson International Airport.

The incumbent union had negotiated a new collective agreement with the successor employer, York County Foods, which was ratified by the employees.

The applicant argued the agreement should be set aside under section 60(1) of the Labour Relations Act because it contained a compulsory membership clause and the union had not established majority support.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the incumbent union had fairly established its majority support and that the employees had freely ratified the agreement.

Canadian Union of Restaurant and Related Employees Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 88 v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1000A, 1984 CanLII 1131

T. Rees

Paul Cavalluzzo

28 cases1981–2015

D. I. Wakely

11 cases1980–1989

Carl Peterson

53 cases1984–2023

Alick Ryder, Q. C.

17 cases1980–1988

M. G. Mitchnick

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 6, 1984

Applications to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as incumbent union's voluntary recognition agreements were validly ratified.

The applicant union sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the incumbent union and apply for certification to represent employees at food-service outlets at Pearson International Airport.

The incumbent union had entered into voluntary recognition agreements with a new concession operator, which were ratified by the employees.

The applicant argued these agreements should be set aside under section 60(1) and section 46(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the employees had freely ratified the agreements and that the incumbent union had established it represented a majority of the employees at the time the agreements were entered into.

Canadian Union of Restaurant and Related Employees Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 88, (AFL-CIO-CLC) v. United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1000A, 1984 CanLII 3444

Russel W Zinn

Robert M. Nelson

2 cases1984–2007

David Jewitt

20 cases1981–2015

M. G. Mitchnick

J. A. Ronson

B. L. Armstrong