B. L. Armstrong

M. E. Geiger

17 cases1984–2001

Jack Matraja

Owen V. Gray

F. C. Burnet

OLRB0 cases1984–1990

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 10, 1984

Sale of business found where former designer purchased equipment and continued production operations for predecessor's retail business.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of business occurred between British Brand Clothes Limited and Antonacci Clothes Inc., and that Antonacci Clothes was bound by the union's bargaining rights.

British Brand had ceased its clothing production operations and terminated its employees.

Patrick Antonacci, a former designer and minority shareholder of British Brand, incorporated a new company, purchased British Brand's production equipment, and hired several former employees to perform contract work, including exclusively supplying British Brand's continuing retail operation.

The Board found that a sale of part of a business had occurred under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, as there was a substantial continuation of the predecessor's business organization, equipment, and key personnel.

The Board declined to order a representation vote, finding that the sale did not create a representation issue requiring a vote.

The application was granted.

Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union v. Antonacci Clothes Inc. and British Brand Clothes Limited, 1984 CanLII 1035

Owen V. Gray

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 6, 1984

Pre-hearing representation vote for occasional teachers ordered during summer recess with ballot box sealed.

The applicant union and intervener union both applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

Both requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent requested that the vote be deferred until September because the school year had ended and occasional teachers would not be called upon during the summer.

The Board declined to defer the vote, emphasizing that the purpose of the pre-hearing vote procedure is to test representation as quickly as possible.

The Board directed that the vote be held as soon as practicable, but ordered the ballots segregated and the ballot box sealed pending a future hearing to resolve disputes over voter eligibility and the propriety of a summer vote.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Board of Education for the City of North York, 1984 CanLII 1037

M. Levinson

3 cases1980–1984

Liana Turrin

Kevin Corporan

2 cases1984–1988

Ken Ottenbreit

Jim Whyte

4 cases1984–2001

Frank Charron

4 cases1984–2001

Bruce Pollock

10 cases1984–2010

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

D. Blair

OLRB0 cases1984–1984

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 20, 1984

Board asserts jurisdiction over statutory freeze complaint during certification raid and grants incumbent union intervener status.

The complainant union filed a complaint alleging the employer breached the statutory freeze under section 79(2) of the Labour Relations Act by altering employee privileges while a certification application was pending.

The employer and the incumbent union (intervener) argued the Board should not inquire into the complaint because there was a subsisting collective agreement, the certification application was untimely, and the matter should be deferred to arbitration.

The Board held that section 79(2) applies even when there is an incumbent union and declined to defer to arbitration, noting the complainant was not a party to the collective agreement.

The Board also reconsidered its initial ruling and granted the intervener status to participate in the proceedings.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Manuel DaSilva Foods Ltd., 1984 CanLII 976

T. Bright

Robert E. Salisbury

5 cases1984–2001

W. H. Wightman

G. Gail Brent

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 6, 1984

Board determines bargaining unit composition and orders representation vote for office, clerical, and technical employees.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of office, clerical, and technical employees.

The parties disputed the inclusion of several positions.

The Board excluded the executive secretaries to the Vice-Presidents of Research and Development and Manufacturing, finding they were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board also excluded product managers, the data processing manager, and the manager of laboratory/quality assurance, finding they exercised managerial functions.

The traffic manager, credit manager, and purchasing agent were included in the unit.

As the union filed membership evidence for less than 55% of the determined bargaining unit, the Board ordered a representation vote.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (U.A.W.) v. Sternson Limited, 1984 CanLII 982

Walter T Lan glev

Tim Laplante

S. R. Hennessv

Roy C. Filion, Q. C.

Ronald A. Hubert

Robert E. Salisbury

5 cases1984–2001

John Hurlev

Hugh Buchanan

2 cases1984–1985

Harold F. CalEy

12 cases1980–2000

Greg F Bowes

F. J. W. Bickford

16 cases1981–1994

Ed Cheung

David I. Bloom

11 cases1983–2000

Cohn Morley

6 cases1984–1990

Carole Currie

2 cases1983–1984

Bob MacKay

3 cases1983–1984

W. G. Donnelly

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

W.F. Rutherford

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

Robert D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1984–1995

Owen V. Gray

M. G. Picher

M. G. Mitchnick

L. Collins

OLRB0 cases1983–1987

J. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1983–1988

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

Ian C. Springate

OLRB0 cases1983–1989

F. S. Cooke

OLRB0 cases1982–1984

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 25, 1984

OLRB decisions on certification, unfair labour practices, duty of fair representation, and sale of a business.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued several decisions regarding applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints.

In the first case, the Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act when three managers obtained signatures on a petition opposing the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote and ordered remedial measures, including a posting and union access to employees.

Other decisions addressed the appropriate bargaining unit for a specialized business centre in a department store, a duty of fair representation complaint involving municipal technical employees, a sale of a business application concerning a retail food store, and the exclusion of a chemical control supervisor from a bargaining unit based on community of interest.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175 v. 561270 Ontario Inc., 1984 CanLII 992

Sean F McGee

Raimo T. Heikkila

6 cases1981–1986

JohnP Nelligan

Bernard P Quinn

W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 11, 1984

Union decertification application dismissed; petition voluntariness undermined by involvement of employee with management ties.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The sole issue was whether the petition in support of the application represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The Board found that the petition was spearheaded by an employee who was a member of the religious order that managed the employer and who had recently stepped down from a management position.

Given this individual's unique status and close ties to management, the Board concluded that the petition's voluntariness was critically undermined.

The application was dismissed.

The Employees of Patro d'Ottawa (Patro Ottawa) (Elaine Deschamps) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, 1984 CanLII 993

Ronald A. Hubert

Greg F Bowes

Cohn Morley

6 cases1984–1990

M. G. Mitchnick

J. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1983–1988

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 7, 1984

Board includes specialized Business Centre sales staff in broader retail store bargaining unit to avoid fragmentation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of full-time and part-time sales staff at the respondent's retail store.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit descriptions, except for the sales staff in the newly created Business Centre.

The respondent argued that the Business Centre staff should be excluded due to their specialized skills, distinct commission structure, and flexible hours.

The Board rejected this argument, noting its policy against fragmented, departmental bargaining units.

The Board found that the differences in working conditions were matters of degree and that the Business Centre staff shared sufficient community of interest with the broader sales unit.

Certificates were issued for the agreed-upon full-time and part-time units.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL:CIO:CLC: v. T. Eaton Company Limited, 1984 CanLII 995

Roy C. Filion

42 cases1980–2017

Peter J. Thorup

27 cases1981–2014

Jeremy Forgie

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

M. G. Mitchnick

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 3, 1984

Board entertains certification application by related union but requires justification for proposed bargaining units.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units of the respondent's employees shortly after a related union lost a representation vote for an all-employee unit.

The respondent argued the Board should refuse to entertain the new applications under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that the two unions have separate and distinct status under the Act, and the bar imposed on the first union did not apply to the applicant.

However, the Board appointed an officer to inquire into the appropriateness of the smaller bargaining units sought by the applicant.

Laundry and Linen Drivers and Industrial Workers Union, Local 847 v. Creeds Storage Ltd., 1984 CanLII 987

Mark Contini

25 cases1981–2023

John Fuller

4 cases1984–1995

David I. Bloom

11 cases1983–2000

W. H. Wightman

R. 0. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–1999

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 19, 1984

Successor employer application dismissed; acquisition of lease and equipment after 18-month closure not a sale of business.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent had acquired an assignment of a lease and purchased some equipment from a Dominion store that had been closed for a year and a half.

The Board found that due to the long hiatus between the closure of the predecessor and the opening of the respondent's business, any goodwill had dissipated.

The transaction was characterized as a mere transfer of surplus assets rather than the sale of a business.

The application was dismissed.

Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, Local 414 v. Ancaster Supermarkets Limited, 1984 CanLII 908

R. A. Hubert

6 cases1984–1987

Michael Horan

38 cases1980–2001

H. A. Beresford

14 cases1980–1989

F. G. Hamilton, Q.C.

7 cases1980–1992

Kevin M. Burkett

I. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1983–1986

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 28, 1984

Union certified without a vote; alleged intimidation by security staff did not warrant representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for four bargaining units at the respondent's retail store in Brampton.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the units and the exclusion of personnel staff.

The Board defined the units to include all retail stores in Brampton and excluded only the existing personnel supervisor.

Objecting employees requested a representation vote, alleging intimidation and coercion by union supporters and security staff.

The Board found that the conduct of fellow employees was normal campaign byplay and that the security staff's actions did not unlawfully interfere with employee rights.

Given that over 80% of employees had signed membership cards, the Board certified the union without a vote.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL:CIO:CLC: v. T. Eaton Company Limited, 1984 CanLII 943

Kevin M. Burkett

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 27, 1984

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; contracting out was economically motivated and properly disclosed during bargaining.

The complainant union alleged that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by contracting out cleaning work shortly after certification and during collective bargaining.

The union argued this was motivated by anti-union animus and that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by tabling wage rates for cleaners while intending to contract out the work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's decision was part of a broader operational review commenced before the union's arrival and was motivated by substantial cost savings.

The Board also held that the employer satisfied its duty to disclose by providing written notice of its intention to contract out prior to bargaining.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Curtis Property Management Ltd., 1984 CanLII 931

Sheila Block

4 cases1984–1993

Rod MacKenzie

J. Vincent Toolsie

Harvey A. Beresford

10 cases1982–1997

W. H. Wightman

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 14, 1984

Union breached duty of fair representation by perfunctorily acquiescing to employee's discharge for innocent absenteeism.

The complainant, an employee with over nine years of seniority and a history of absenteeism due to injuries, was discharged by the employer after a medical assessment indicated he could not perform his regular job and no light duty work was available.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to advocate for him or file a grievance regarding his discharge.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's perfunctory acquiescence to the discharge, without considering the arbitral jurisprudence on innocent absenteeism or the possibility of preserving his employment status, constituted arbitrary conduct.

The Board ordered the union to file and process a discharge grievance to arbitration at its own expense.

Vujicic v. The Schneider Employees Association, 1984 CanLII 936

Robert McKay

17 cases1984–2001

J. Paul Wearing

16 cases1984–2016

David I. Bloom

11 cases1983–2000

Bruno H. Kaufinann

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

F. C. Burnet

OLRB0 cases1984–1990

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 23, 1984

Application for successor rights dismissed; leasing former supermarket premises did not constitute sale of business.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was bound by a collective agreement between the union and Dominion Stores Limited, arguing that the respondent's leasing of premises formerly operated by Dominion constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the respondent's operation of an ethnically oriented supermarket at the location was an expansion of its own pre-existing business rather than a continuation of Dominion's business.

The Board noted the hiatus between operations, the extensive renovations, and the lack of transfer of goodwill or assets other than the lease.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 414 v. Queensway Foods Ltd., 1984 CanLII 1067

E. Rovet

9 cases1980–1988

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 16, 1984

Board adjourns constitutional jurisdiction issue in taxi certification and denies intervener status to association and rival union.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent drivers of the respondent taxi company.

Preliminary issues arose regarding the Board's constitutional jurisdiction, given the company's extra-provincial trips to Quebec, and the status of two interveners.

The Board adjourned the constitutional issue pending further evidence and the outcome of a parallel federal application.

The Board denied intervener status to the Ottawa Taxi Owners and Brokers Association, finding it had only a commercial interest, and to the Canadian Union of Operating Engineers, finding it failed to demonstrate it represented the affected employees or that its collective agreement covered them.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v. Alpha Taxi Ltd., 1984 CanLII 1059

Paul J. J. Cavalluzzo

5 cases1981–1998

Brain Herlich

11 cases1982–1988

W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 13, 1984

Religious exemption from union dues denied as premature because union had not yet expended funds on abortion resolution.

The applicant, a Teaching Master and practicing Roman Catholic, applied for a religious exemption from paying union dues under section 53 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

He objected to the union's adoption of a resolution supporting a woman's right to choose abortion, arguing it fundamentally conflicted with his religious beliefs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the applicant's beliefs were sincere and religious, the application was premature because the union had not yet expended any funds or taken concrete action on the resolution.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to re-file if further developments warranted.

Paul Tremblay v. The Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 1984 CanLII 1064

Paul Martindale

Paul Jarvis

12 cases1984–2000

Norman Ahmet

2 cases1984–1988

Marlene E. Miller

Ian Baker

George Surdykowski

4 cases1980–1986

Fred W Birket

W. G. Donnelly

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

Owen V. Gray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 19, 1984

Board directed further hearing to determine jurisdiction and trade union status in certification application.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent teachers employed by the respondent at Humewood House School.

The respondent objected, arguing the applicant was not a trade union under the Labour Relations Act because it included principals and vice-principals who exercise managerial functions.

The Board questioned its own jurisdiction, noting that the Labour Relations Act does not apply to teachers as defined in the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

The Board declined to accept the parties' agreement on jurisdiction and the appropriate bargaining unit, and directed a further hearing to receive evidence on these issues.

Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation v. The Board of Education for the City of York, 1984 CanLII 946

Owen V. Gray

J. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1987

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 13, 1984

Employer's pre-vote letter constituted undue influence; representation vote set aside and new vote ordered with remedial measures.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and sought certification without a vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, a new representation vote.

The union alleged that the employer violated the Act by mailing a letter to employees shortly before a pre-hearing representation vote, which contained implied threats and promises regarding an existing employee association.

The Board found that the employer's letter constituted undue influence in violation of section 64 of the Act.

The Board set aside the results of the representation vote but declined to certify the union without a vote, concluding that the adverse impact of the employer's conduct could be rectified by remedial measures, including a new vote, a union meeting on company premises, and the posting of a Board notice.

Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers v. Seven-Up/Pure Spring Ottawa, A Division of Seven-Up Canada Inc., 1984 CanLII 959

K. R. Valin

9 cases1983–1996

W. H. Wightman

Owen V. Gray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 9, 1984

Board orders representation vote for a single bargaining unit of full-time and part-time hospital employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union representing employees at the respondent hospital.

The parties disagreed on the appropriate bargaining unit description, with the applicant seeking a single unit for all employees and the respondent and intervener arguing for separate full-time and part-time units.

The Board applied its general practice of adopting the bargaining unit described in the most recent collective agreement.

Finding that the existing collective agreement and bargaining history treated all employees as a single unit, the Board determined that a single comprehensive bargaining unit was appropriate and ordered a representation vote.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Sudbury Hospital Services Limited, 1984 CanLII 962

M. Ries

1 case1983–1983

J. G. Knight

3 cases1980–1983

D. Strang

4 cases1982–1997

D. Janes Forbes-Roberts

1 case1983–1983

Richard M. Brown

OLRB0 cases1983–1984

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

B. L. Armstrong