B. L. Armstrong

Corinne F. Murray

OLRB0 cases1982–1985

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 8, 1983

Board accepts decertification petition lacking a heading because signatories were shown Form 17 before signing.

The applicants applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued that the petition circulated by the applicants was invalid because it lacked a heading indicating its purpose at the time it was signed.

The Board found that because the applicants showed each signatory a blank Form 17 (Application for Declaration Terminating Bargaining Rights) before they signed, the employees knew the purpose of the petition.

The Board accepted the petition as voluntary signification in writing and ordered a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing the petition did not meet the strict requirements of Rule 73.

Brenda Millward, Lilian McFarland v. Service Employees Union, Local 204 A.F.L., C.I.O., C.L.C., 1983 CanLII 739

Owen V Gray

4 cases1982–1983

James E. Bowden

15 cases1980–2014

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

C. G. Bourne

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 30, 1983

Employer found to have committed pervasive unfair labour practices following union certification application; extensive remedies ordered.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer committed numerous unfair labour practices following an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer engaged in a pervasive campaign of anti-union animus, including unlawful layoffs, constructive discharge, harassment, and unilateral alterations to terms and conditions of employment during the statutory freeze period.

The Board ordered extensive remedial relief, including reinstatement with compensation, restoration of privileges, and union access to employer-convened meetings.

Christian Labour Association of Canada v. Peter Nursing Home Limited, 1983 CanLII 920

John Davison

Ian R. Logan

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

David B. Hamilton

J. Wilson

Ian Springate

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 25, 1983

Union estopped from claiming travel allowances after assuring employer local workers would be referred.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer failed to pay travel allowances to carpenters from Essex County working on a project in Chatham, contrary to the provincial agreement.

The employer argued it was not required to pay the allowances because a union official had previously assured the employer that local Chatham carpenters would be referred to the project, leading the employer to omit travel allowances from its project costing.

The Board found that the doctrine of estoppel applied, as the employer had reasonably relied on the union official's assurance to its detriment.

The grievance was dismissed.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 494 v. New Vision Construction Limited, 1983 CanLII 931

William T Mclnenly

N. B. Satterfield

M. Eayers

OLRB0 cases1983–1983

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 14, 1983

Unfair labour practice and bad faith bargaining complaint dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer committed unfair labour practices by altering working conditions, disciplining union supporters, and failing to bargain in good faith during first contract negotiations.

The union claimed the employer retreated from earlier verbal wage offers in its subsequent written proposals.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding insufficient evidence of anti-union animus or unlawful alteration of working conditions.

Regarding the bad faith bargaining claim, the Board found that the union failed to prove the employer had made binding verbal offers from which it later retreated, attributing the misunderstanding to miscommunication and changes in the union's bargaining representatives.

A dissenting member would have found a violation of the duty to bargain in good faith.

Canadian Union of Operating Engineers & General Workers, Local 111 v. M & O Bus Lines (Handicab) Ltd., 1983 CanLII 741

R. Budd

6 cases1982–1994

Philip Spencer

3 cases1983–2002

Paul Middleton

6 cases1983–1994

David Starkman

10 cases1983–1987

B. Grossman

2 cases1983–1983

Bernie Hanson

9 cases1983–2016

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

E. J. Brady

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 4, 1983

Board has jurisdiction to hear sale of business application involving court-appointed receiver without court leave.

The applicant union filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business by Chateau Gardens to the respondents, a court-appointed receiver and a secured creditor.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had not obtained leave of the Supreme Court of Ontario, as required by the receiving order.

The Board held that it had exclusive jurisdiction under sections 106(1) and 108 of the Act, and that requiring leave of the court would constitute an impermissible questioning or restraining of the Board's proceedings.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection and directed the matter to be listed for a hearing on the merits.

London & District Service Workers' Union, Local 220 v. Price Waterhouse Limited, 1983 CanLII 925

M. G. Mitchnick

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 15, 1983

Application to exclude Residence Supervisors from bargaining unit dismissed as an improper request for reconsideration.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to have its Residence Supervisors exempted from the bargaining unit, a matter previously decided against the employer in 1981.

The Board treated the application as a request for reconsideration and dismissed it, noting that no new evidence or material changes in duties were presented.

The Board also declined to treat the matter as a fresh application under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act, as the parties were in the middle of a collective agreement term and the employer had not reserved the right to bring a subsequent application.

Cochrane Temiskaming Resource Centre v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 664, 1983 CanLII 991

Win. Markle

R. Sprang

Pauline R. Seville

6 cases1981–1983

Maurice A. Green

34 cases1980–2009

Ivor Oram

7 cases1983–1987

Elizabeth J. Shilton Lennon

10 cases1980–1989

Elaine Lichtenberg

D. W. Brady

8 cases1980–1986

Donna M. Aberle

David Clarke

2 cases1983–2000

C. Wooding

2 cases1983–1983

Chris G. Paliare

192 cases1980–2026

Barry Edson

10 cases1980–1999

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

C. G. Bourne

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 14, 1983

Board establishes separate elementary and secondary bargaining units for occasional teachers but rejects short-term/long-term division.

The applicant union sought certification for a single bargaining unit of all occasional teachers employed by the respondent board of education.

The respondent argued for four separate units, dividing teachers by elementary/secondary panels and by short-term/long-term assignments.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected the short-term/long-term division, finding it would cause undue fragmentation given the fluid nature of occasional teaching assignments.

However, the Board accepted the division between elementary and secondary panels, citing historical dichotomies, different qualifications, and distinct bargaining priorities.

The Board also determined that its standard 'thirty day rule' would apply to calculate the number of employees in the bargaining units at the time of the application.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Board of Education for the City of Toronto, 1983 CanLII 984

M. Cornish

7 cases1981–1987

M. Contini

9 cases1982–2023

J. Wilson

Ian Springate

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 3, 1983

Union certified without a vote due to employer's unfair labour practices, including discharging union supporters.

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

The employer challenged the union's membership evidence based on irregularities in the collection process, but the Board found the evidence reliable as the union had properly disclosed and corrected the issues.

The employer conceded to committing unfair labour practices, including discharging key union supporters.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions destroyed the free selection process, making it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained in a representation vote.

Consequently, the Board certified the union under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act and ordered extensive remedial measures, including reinstatement, compensation, and union access to the workplace.

Food and Service Workers of Canada v. Bond Place Hotel, 1983 CanLII 990

Ron Davidson

2 cases1982–2021

Robert Howell

R. Gordon Spear

2 cases1982–1985

Owen V Gray

4 cases1982–1983

J. Sack, Q.C.

6 cases1982–1984

Jack Nichols

Hank Beekhuis

4 cases1981–1992

Ethan Poskanzer

7 cases1982–2010

Ed Grootenboer

Kevin M. Burkett

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 31, 1983

Displacement applications for certification dismissed as untimely due to collective agreement extensions under the Inflation Restraint Act.

The applicant unions filed pre-hearing displacement applications for certification.

The intervener incumbent union argued the applications were untimely because the Inflation Restraint Act extended the existing collective agreements, thereby closing the 'open period' under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that section 13 of the Inflation Restraint Act extended the collective agreements beyond their normal expiry dates, rendering the applications untimely.

The Board also rejected the argument that this extension violated the freedom of association under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applications were dismissed.

Service Employees Union, Local 204 v. Broadway Manor Nursing Home, 1982 CanLII 1048

M. G. Picher

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

J. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1983–1988

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 28, 1983

Request for reconsideration denied as no new material evidence or arguments were presented.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision regarding whether a franchise transfer constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board denied the request, finding that the applicant presented no substantial and material new evidence or arguments.

The Board clarified that its prior decision found the franchise was terminated, not transferred, and thus did not determine the legal effect of a franchise transfer under section 63.

One Board member dissented.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) Local 641 v. Ottawa Truck Centre, a division of Kemptville Truck Centre Limited, 1983 CanLII 816

M. Contini

9 cases1982–2023

Mary Cornish

53 cases1981–2022

J. Wilson

Ian Springate

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 18, 1983

Employer liable for unlawful discharges; compensation reduced for one employee who quit alternate employment.

The complainant union brought section 89 complaints alleging two employees were unlawfully discharged.

The respondent employer acknowledged the unlawful terminations but disputed whether the employees adequately mitigated their losses.

The Board found that one employee reasonably mitigated her losses by seeking full-time employment to replace her part-time jobs.

For the second employee, the Board found he acted reasonably in turning down a job offer in another city due to financial constraints, but failed to mitigate his losses when he subsequently quit a part-time job before securing alternate full-time employment.

Food and Service Workers of Canada v. Bond Place Hotel, 1983 CanLII 805

R. O. MacDowell

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 14, 1983

Board declined to appoint officer for employee status dispute pending further clarification of the issues.

The applicant union requested the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to investigate whether certain individuals performing alleged bargaining unit work were employees or exercised managerial functions.

The Board declined to appoint an officer at this stage, noting that the dispute might primarily involve the interpretation of the collective agreement rather than statutory employee status.

The Board directed the parties to provide further representations clarifying the nature of their dispute and the duties of the individuals in question.

Technical, Office, Professional, Local 1535 v. Northern Telecom, 1983 CanLII 814

W A. Lokay

P. M. Matthews

M. LaPointe

Janice Baker

29 cases1980–2000

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. 0. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–1999

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 13, 1983

Campus supervisors found to be employees under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, not managerial exclusions.

The union brought a reference under section 82 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act concerning the status of six campus supervisors employed by the respondent college.

The employer argued that the supervisors exercised managerial functions and should be excluded from the support staff bargaining unit.

The Board examined the duties of the supervisors, which included security functions, monitoring campus events, and assigning work to three bargaining unit employees.

The Board found that the supervisors did not exercise sufficient authority over the bargaining unit employees to create a conflict of interest, nor did their security functions warrant exclusion under the Act.

The Board concluded that the campus supervisors were employees within the meaning of the Act and properly included in the bargaining unit.

One board member dissented.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Sheridan College of Applied Arts and Technology, 1983 CanLII 817

R. Budd

6 cases1982–1994

James Fyshe

32 cases1981–2011

C. M. McKeown, Q.C.

2 cases1982–1985

Alick Ryder, Q. C.

17 cases1980–1988

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 15, 1982

Sale of business found where subsidiary took over parent's store leases and continued retail food operations.

The applicant union alleged a sale of a business from Steinberg to Yesteryear under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively that they were related employers under section 1(4).

Steinberg closed two stores and transferred the leases and some assets to Yesteryear, a wholly owned subsidiary, which reopened them as warehouse-style stores with new employees.

The respondents argued the union was estopped from bringing the application because it had engaged in negotiations for a separate collective agreement with Yesteryear.

The Board found no waiver or estoppel, as the union made no promise not to exercise its statutory rights.

On the merits, the Board found a sale of a business occurred, as Yesteryear occupied the same premises and continued a substantially similar retail food business.

Yesteryear was declared bound by the predecessor's collective agreement.

Commercial Workers Union, Local 486 v. Steinberg Inc., 1982 CanLII 984

Robert A. MacDermid

5 cases1980–1983

H. Goldblatt

16 cases1980–1988

C. A. Cumiskey

4 cases1981–1983

Barry Edson

10 cases1980–1999

A. Edge

J. A. Ronson

Corinne F. Murray

OLRB0 cases1982–1985

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 8, 1982

Board finds separate full-time and part-time collective agreements exist and protects petition signatories' identities.

The applicants applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights for a full-time employee unit.

The union argued the appropriate unit included part-time employees and students, relying on a single document containing terms for both groups.

The Board found the document constituted two separate collective agreements and the full-time unit was appropriate.

The Board also denied the applicants' request to call all petition signatories to testify, citing the need to protect the secrecy of union membership under section 111(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Brenda Millward, Lilian McFarland v. Service Employees Union, Local 204 A.F.L., C.I.O., C.L.C., 1982 CanLII 996

R. C. Filion

29 cases1980–1996

Paul Cavalluzzo

28 cases1981–2015

B. W. Binning

11 cases1980–2000

J. A. Ronson

Ian Springate

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 18, 1982

Grievance dismissed; letter of intent did not mandate union consultation for non-union shop fabrication.

The union and the company both referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union alleged that the company violated a letter of intent incorporated into the collective agreement by subcontracting the fabrication of vessels to a non-union shop without prior consultation or justification.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that while the company ignored the spirit of the letter of intent, the letter only suggested, rather than mandated, that fabrication work be placed in union shops or discussed with the union if placed elsewhere.

MHG International Ltd. v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, Local Union 128, 1982 CanLII 1022

R. M. Parry

16 cases1980–1993

Lorne Richmond

21 cases1982–2022

J. Sack, Q.C.

6 cases1982–1984

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 9, 1982

Employers committed unfair labour practices by refusing to disclose wage rates and bargaining directly with striking employees.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employers committed unfair labour practices during a lawful strike.

The union claimed the employers bargained in bad faith by refusing to disclose the actual wage rates of bargaining unit employees and by bargaining directly with striking employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employers violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by withholding the wage information, which was necessary for rational and informed collective bargaining.

The Board also found that one of the employers, Globe, violated sections 64 and 67(1) by engaging in direct negotiations with a group of employees, thereby undermining the union's exclusive bargaining rights.

The Board ordered the employers to cease direct bargaining, disclose the wage rates, and resume mediation.

United Steelworkers of America and its Local 7291 v. Globe Spring & Cushion Co. Ltd., 1982 CanLII 1036

Laurence C. Arnold

24 cases1981–2001

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

Brian P. Smeenk

34 cases1982–2012

J. A. Ronson

D. E. Franks

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 3, 1982

Interim order granted directing employer to continue assigning disputed work to U.A. Local 463.

The complainant employer sought an interim order and a cease and desist order regarding a work assignment dispute between two unions over the off-loading of piping equipment.

The employer had assigned the work to the U.A. Local 463 after the Ironworkers Local 721 allegedly refused to perform work on the site.

The Ironworkers requested the Board to change the assignment.

The Board applied its established jurisprudence that an employer's assignment will be continued unless patently wrong.

Finding the assignment was made after representations from both unions, the Board directed the employer to continue assigning the work to U.A. Local 463 pending a final resolution.

Lummus Canada Inc. v. The International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local Union 721 et al., 1982 CanLII 1039

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

N. B. Satterfield

B. L. Armstrong