B. L. Armstrong

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 26, 1982

Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as union's delay in bargaining was adequately explained.

The employer applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 59 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the union failed to commence bargaining within sixty days of giving notice.

The Board found that while there was a delay, it was adequately explained by the union representative's health problems and difficulties in forming a bargaining committee.

The Board concluded that the union had actively pursued its bargaining mandate and dismissed the application.

West Bend of Canada Division of Dart Industries Canada Limited v. United Steelworkers of America, 1982 CanLII 940

S. C. Bernardo

42 cases1980–2001

Laurence C. A mold

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

H.J.F. Ade

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

D. E. Franks

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 23, 1982

Pre-hire collective agreement in construction industry held valid and not improper employer support.

The applicant union applied for certification and challenged the status of the intervener union.

The intervener relied on a short-form agreement signed with the respondent employer before any employees were hired for a construction project.

The applicant argued this constituted improper employer support under the Labour Relations Act, rendering the agreement invalid.

The Board held that in the construction industry, signing a collective agreement to secure union members from a hiring hall before they commence work does not constitute improper employer support.

The Board found the agreement was a valid collective agreement, giving the intervener status, and directed the matter to continue.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 607 v. Nicholls-Radtke & Associates Limited, 1982 CanLII 927

Stephen Shan field

B. R. Baldwin

8 cases1981–1991

Ian Springate

OLRB0 cases1981–1988

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 16, 1982

Minister has authority to appoint conciliation officer; uncertified council of unions acts only as agent.

The employers requested the Minister of Labour to appoint a conciliation officer, naming Local 432 as the trade union.

The union objected, asserting that the Ontario Projectionists' Association had been designated as its agent for collective bargaining and had acquired the rights of Local 432.

The Minister referred the question of his authority to appoint a conciliation officer to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board found that the Association is not a trade union at common law or under the Labour Relations Act, but rather an uncertified council of trade unions.

As such, it can only act as an agent for Local 432, which retains the formal bargaining rights.

The Board concluded that the Minister has the authority to appoint a conciliation officer naming Local 432.

Famous Players Limited v. Motion Picture Projectionists Union, Local 432, 1982 CanLII 923

L. Bertuzzi

14 cases1982–2001

Harold F. Caley

51 cases1980–2003

George W. Adams

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 12, 1982

Employer directed to proceed first in unfair labour practice complaint as reverse onus applies broadly.

The complainant trade unions filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging violations of sections 3, 15, 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming the employer favoured a non-unionized plant to the detriment of unionized plants.

On a preliminary motion regarding procedure, the employer argued the reverse onus under section 89(5) only applied to sections 66 and 70, and thus the union should proceed first.

The Board held that section 89(5) applies to any substantive provision breached by employment-related discrimination, including section 64.

Given the integral nature of the allegations and the employer's knowledge of the facts, the Board directed the employer to proceed first on all allegations, including the section 15 claim.

Canadian Paperworkers Union v. Domtar Packaging, 1982 CanLII 922

William Hutchison

2 cases1982–1982

Brian P. Bellmore

15 cases1982–2016

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

Alick Ryder, Q. C.

17 cases1980–1988

R. D. Howe

J. A. Ronson

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 25, 1982

Board refused to carve out skilled tradespeople from an existing comprehensive bargaining unit in a displacement application.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for a comprehensive unit of outside workers.

After the applicant won a pre-hearing representation vote, a group of skilled tradespeople objected, seeking to be carved out into a separate bargaining unit represented by the incumbent union.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the existing comprehensive unit had a long history of successful collective bargaining and that fragmenting it was not justified.

A certificate was issued to the applicant for the comprehensive unit.

Utility Workers of Canada v. The Public Utilities Commission of the Borough of Scarborough, 1982 CanLII 888

T Tracey

P. Crowle

K. W. Kort

12 cases1981–1999

B. W. Adams

8 cases1980–1995

R. O. MacDowell

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 18, 1982

Fixer-foremen found to be employees within the bargaining unit; quality control supervisor excluded as management.

The union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether certain individuals working for the respondent exercised managerial functions and were thus excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board found that the fixer-foremen did not exercise managerial responsibilities, as their direction of other employees was purely incidental to their primary concern of maintaining machines.

However, the Board concluded that the quality control supervisor did exercise managerial functions, noting her historical exclusion from the unit and her involvement in actions that could adversely impact fellow employees.

Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union, CIO-CLC v. Vagden Mills Limited, 1982 CanLII 892

R. D. Howe

J. A. Ronson

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 16, 1982

Request to add internal division name to corporate employer's name in style of cause dismissed.

The respondent employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision, asking that its internal division name be added to its corporate name in the style of cause.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the legal entity is the corporation itself and that restricting bargaining rights to a specific division is properly accomplished in the bargaining unit description rather than the style of cause.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL:CIO:CLC: v. Beatrice Foods (Ontario) Limited, 1982 CanLII 870

R. J. Marshall

H. F. Orser

D. I. Wakely

11 cases1980–1989

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. D. Howe

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 4, 1982

Union certified without a representation vote after counter-petitions found to be voluntary.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification, but the union subsequently filed counter-petitions reaffirming support for the union.

The Board found the counter-petitions to be a voluntary expression of employee wishes, despite a gap in the evidence regarding their custody prior to mailing.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and certified the union, with one Board member dissenting.

Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour Cereal, and Distillery Workers v. Uxbridge Beverages Ltd., 1982 CanLII 890

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

R. D. Howe

C. G. Bourne

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 27, 1982

Employers committed unfair labour practices by contracting out work to defeat union bargaining rights.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the respondent employers engaged in a series of corporate reorganizations and contracting-out arrangements designed to defeat the union's bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employers violated the Labour Relations Act by laying off unionized employees and transferring their work to other entities to avoid collective bargaining obligations.

The Board also found that the primary employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The Board ordered extensive remedial relief, including the reinstatement of the affected employees with back pay and a direction to commence collective bargaining.

Applications for a declaration of a sale of a business and for consent to prosecute were dismissed.

United Cement, Lime & Gypsum Workers International Union v. Plastics CMP Limited, 1981 CanLII 1048

T. Spada

3 cases1981–1982

R. A. Werry

38 cases1980–1994

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

M. G. Mitchnick

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 13, 1982

Petition opposing union certification found voluntary despite being circulated by a lead hand.

During an application for certification, a group of employees filed a petition opposing the union.

The union challenged the voluntariness of the petition, arguing that the main proponent was a lead hand who exercised managerial functions or was perceived as management.

The Board found that the lead hand possessed only minimal supervisory responsibilities and was not perceived as management by the employees.

The Board concluded that the petition was voluntary and directed the union to advise whether it wished to proceed with its section 8 charges or proceed to a representation vote.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. F. W. Woolworth Co. Limited, 1982 CanLII 901

Ross Dunsmore

18 cases1980–2022

Michael A Church

J. D. Bell

D. E. Franks

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 7, 1982

Reporting pay provision does not apply to pre-arranged overtime work on a Sunday.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer breached the collective agreement regarding reporting pay.

Five carpenters worked five hours of pre-arranged overtime on a Sunday and were paid for five hours at double time.

The union argued that under Article 18, the employees were entitled to an additional four hours' pay because they worked one hour into the second half of the shift.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that Article 18 applies only to regularly scheduled daily work and not to extraordinary overtime situations on weekends where there are no normal daily hours.

The Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council on behalf of United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2222 v. Ontario Hydro, 1982 CanLII 908

W. Challis

2 cases1980–1982

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

G. Weir

2 cases1981–1982

C. Eames

G. Picher

OLRB0 cases1982–1982

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 22, 1982

Unfair labour practice complaint regarding ratification and strike votes dismissed; termination application dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent union violated the Labour Relations Act by intimidating and coercing employees during a strike vote and a ratification vote, and sought to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The Board found no evidence of intimidation or coercion, noting that the union's timing of the votes to protect its bargaining rights was a reasonable business practice.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint and subsequently dismissed the application for termination of bargaining rights as untimely due to the existence of a valid collective agreement.

Leonard Kitchen v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and its Local 417, 1982 CanLII 812

Michael Gordon

40 cases1980–1991

Donald F. O. Hersey

7 cases1980–1986

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

Kevin M. Burkett

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 1, 1982

Board declares Ontario Nurses' Association holds bargaining rights based on 1975 voluntary recognition agreement.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) applied for a declaration of successor rights and filed a complaint alleging the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to recognize ONA as the bargaining agent.

The employer argued it had only recognized a specific local, not the provincial ONA.

The Board found that the employer had signed a clear and unequivocal voluntary recognition agreement in 1975 recognizing the provincial ONA.

The Board declared that ONA holds the bargaining rights and declined to make a formal finding of bad faith bargaining, expecting the employer to comply.

Ontario Nurses' Association v. Sudbury and District Health Unit, 1982 CanLII 823

Susan A. Bisset

3 cases1980–1982

Donald F. O. Hersey

7 cases1980–1986

D. I. Wakely

11 cases1980–1989

A. Craig

4 cases1980–1997

J. A. Ronson

George W. Adams

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 16, 1982

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; employer lacked anti-union animus in reporting union president to College.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital committed an unfair labour practice by filing a professional misconduct complaint against the local union president with the College of Nurses.

The union president had made inaccurate public statements at a press conference linking a patient's death to understaffing in the intensive care unit.

The Board found that the union president's statements, though inaccurate, were made without malice and constituted protected trade union activity under the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the hospital lacked anti-union animus and held a genuine belief that the statements constituted professional misconduct when it reported her to the College.

Ontario Nurses' Association v. The St. Catherines General Hospital, 1982 CanLII 866

M. G. Mitchnick

J. D. Bell

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 23, 1982

Board determines employee status of five individuals under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether five individuals were 'employees' under the Act.

The Board reviewed the Labour Relations Officer's report and written submissions.

The Board found that the administrative assistant to the Director of Human Resources, the Administrative Services Supervisor, and the Co-ordinator of the Education Centre exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations, and were therefore excluded from the definition of 'employee' under section 1(3)(b).

The Research Co-ordinator and the Co-ordinator of Employment Relations Services were found to be employees for the purposes of the Act.

Ontario Nurses' Association v. Ontario Nurses' Association Staff Union, 1982 CanLII 839

P. Jovanovich

J. R. Hassell

2 cases1982–1983

Charles Roach

11 cases1980–2012

M. G. Mitchnick

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 26, 1982

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed due to extreme and unjustified delay of over two years.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union over two and a half years after she was discharged by her employer.

Following her discharge, the union declined to file a grievance, and the complainant pursued remedies against the employer through the Human Rights Commission and the courts.

The Board dismissed the complaint without inquiring into the merits, finding that the extreme delay prejudiced the union and that the complainant's pursuit of other remedies against the employer did not justify the delay in proceeding against the union.

Gurnam Dhanota v. International Union United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (U.A.W.) Local Union No. 1285, 1982 CanLII 1060

J. A. Ronson

Ian Springate

OLRB0 cases1981–1988

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 5, 1982

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; lay-off and failure to recall were motivated by legitimate business reasons.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by laying off all employees and subsequently failing to recall five specific employees, including the primary union organizer, shortly after receiving notice of an application for certification.

The employer argued the lay-off was necessitated by severe financial difficulties, lack of orders, and a demand for advance payment from a supplier.

The Board found that the employer met the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act, establishing on a balance of probabilities that the lay-off and the decisions not to recall the specific employees were motivated by legitimate business considerations and employee performance, not anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

The Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers' Union v. Trimarine (Canada) Ltd., 1982 CanLII 1065

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

M. G. Mitchnick

J. D. Bell

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 23, 1981

Motion to dismiss denied in part; allegations of intimidation frustrating union elections raise a prima facie case.

The complainants, a former Business Manager and his wife, filed a complaint against the respondent union alleging violations of the Labour Relations Act, including intimidation, coercion, and sexual discrimination, following a disputed union election.

The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the allegations under section 68, as the complainants were not employees in a bargaining unit, and under section 13, which does not create a standalone offence for sexual discrimination.

However, the Board refused to dismiss the allegations under sections 3 and 70, finding that the alleged pattern of intimidatory and coercive conduct designed to frustrate the union's democratic election processes raised a prima facie case.

Frank Manoni and Lise Manoni v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 527, 1981 CanLII 801

Paul J. J. Cavalluzzo

5 cases1981–1998

Martin L. Levinson

1 case1981–1981

F. G. Hamilton

28 cases1980–2001

J. D. Bell

George W. Adams

B. L. Armstrong