B. L. Armstrong

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 24, 1981

Board limits employee status inquiry to changes in duties since new collective agreement was signed.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether certain persons were employees.

The respondent hospital objected, arguing that the parties had just concluded a new collective agreement without the union reserving the issue of employee status.

The Board applied its policy that a party cannot unilaterally withdraw from an agreement on employment status absent a material change in duties.

Because the union did not reserve its right prior to the new agreement, the Board limited the appointment of a Board Officer to inquiring only into material changes in duties and responsibilities since the new agreement was entered into.

Service Employees Union, Local 268 v. St. Joseph's General Hospital, 1981 CanLII 983

J P. Wearing

12 cases1980–1989

Brian Shell

Not Practising Law66 cases1981–2021

R. D. Howe

J. D. Bell

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 23, 1981

Application for certification dismissed; foremen found to exercise managerial functions under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of foremen employed by the respondent.

The respondent argued that the foremen exercised managerial functions and were therefore excluded from the definition of 'employee' under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of the foremen, including their role in disciplining employees, responding to grievances, and assessing probationary employees.

The majority of the Board concluded that the foremen exercised true managerial functions and dismissed the application for certification.

One Board member dissented, finding the foremen's duties to be merely supervisory.

United Steelworkers of America v. Stanley Precision, Inc., 1981 CanLII 984

W. T. Langley

3 cases1980–1983

R. O. MacDowell

C. G. Bourne

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 18, 1981

Oil burner servicemen found to be dependent contractors for the purpose of union certification.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of dependent contractors working as oil burner servicemen for the respondent.

The respondent argued the individuals were independent contractors.

The Board applied the statutory definition of 'dependent contractor' under section 1(1)(h) of the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that the contractors were economically dependent on the respondent and that their relationship more closely resembled that of an employee than an independent contractor, the Board concluded they were dependent contractors.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule a further hearing regarding the voluntariness of statements of desire filed by some contractors.

United Steelworkers of America v. H. G. Francis and Sons Limited, 1981 CanLII 897

R. B. Cumine, Q. C.

2 cases1981–1983

R. O. MacDowell

J. A. Ronson

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 16, 1981

Representation vote ordered after employee petition for termination of union bargaining rights found voluntary.

The applicant employee filed an application for termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights, supported by a petition signed by approximately 70% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The union argued that the petition was not voluntary because the applicant and another employee who circulated it were group leaders who exercised managerial functions or could be perceived as managerial.

The Board found that the group leaders were members of the bargaining unit and their role in circulating the petition was peripheral.

The Board concluded that the petition was a voluntary expression of employee wishes and directed that a representation vote be taken.

Vick Diorenzo v. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and its Local 512, 1981 CanLII 946

William S. Challis

9 cases1981–1995

M. Zigler

17 cases1980–2013

John Adema

2 cases1981–1982

B. Mc Queen

3 cases1981–1982

R. D. Howe

C. G. Bourne

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 23, 1981

Board declines to dismiss related employer application and clarifies the extent of particulars required given statutory reverse onus.

The applicant union filed an application alleging a sale of business and related employer status between the respondents.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application without a hearing, arguing the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case and demanding further particulars.

The Board held that the application made out a prima facie case and that the statutory reverse onus provisions limit the extent to which an applicant must particularize facts exclusively within the respondents' knowledge.

However, the Board directed the applicant to provide further particulars regarding specific allegations of improper conduct.

The Board also deferred ruling on the intervener's status until it adduced evidence of a valid collective agreement.

International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95 v. Guaranteed Insulation '77 Limited and Expert Respondents, 1981 CanLII 896

Wayne Gallier

Paula M. Rusak

18 cases1981–2016

R. O. MacDowell

J. D. Bell

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 21, 1981

Spouses of resident superintendents working as a team are employees under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent cleaning and maintenance employees, including resident superintendents.

A dispute arose over whether the wives of the superintendents, who worked as part of a team but were not paid directly or subject to statutory deductions, were 'employees' under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the wives were employees because they performed work under the respondent's direction and control and shared accommodation provided by the respondent.

A representation vote was ordered.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Marchant Property Management, 1981 CanLII 942

Susan Stewart

4 cases1980–1984

S. Krashinsky

5 cases1980–2000

M. G. Horan

12 cases1981–1995

L. A. MacLean

20 cases1980–1993

J P. Wearing

12 cases1980–1989

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. O. MacDowell

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 20, 1981

Employee association denied certification due to employer support in providing an employee list to organizers.

The applicant union applied for certification.

An employee association intervened, seeking certification as a rival trade union.

The Board found that the intervener was formed by a small group of employees opposed to unionization, and that the employer's plant manager had provided them with a list of employee names and telephone numbers to assist in forming the association.

The Board held that this constituted employer support within the meaning of section 13 of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the intervener's application for certification and directed a representation vote for the applicant union.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (U.A.W.) v. Tri-Canada Inc., 1981 CanLII 1010

John M. Macaulay

Beth Symes

27 cases1980–2014

M. G. Mitchnick

J. A. Ronson

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 25, 1981

Sale of a business found where new owners continued operating tavern under the same name.

The applicant union brought an application under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that a sale of a business had taken place when the respondents acquired the leasehold interest and liquor licence of The Horseshoe Tavern.

The respondents argued that they had merely acquired assets and changed the character of the business from a 'punk rock' venue to a 'country and western' lounge.

The Board found that the transaction constituted a continuation of the predecessor's business, noting that the tavern operated at the same location, under the same name, and that the 'punk rock' format was merely a brief interlude in the tavern's long history as a country and western centre.

The Board declared that a sale of a business had occurred and that the union's bargaining rights continued to bind the respondents.

International Beverage Dispensers' and Bartenders' Union, Local 280 v. 419748 Ontario Limited, 1981 CanLII 902

W. Iler

M. Cornish

7 cases1981–1987

I. T. Bern

3 cases1981–2015

R. O. MacDowell

J. A. Ronson

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 9, 1981

Union not estopped from certifying employees previously agreed to be excluded; employees found non-managerial.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a group of employees, including captain-waiters and an assistant maitre d'hotel.

The respondent employer argued these individuals exercised managerial functions and that the union was estopped from representing them due to a prior agreement excluding them from a previous certification.

The Board found that the individuals did not exercise managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also held that the union was not estopped from applying to represent them, as the prior agreement did not result in an unfair advantage for the union or prejudice to the employer.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and found the union had sufficient membership support.

Canadian Food and Associated Services Union v. Windsor Arms Hotel Limited, 1981 CanLII 1036

M. G. Mitchnick

E. J. Brady

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 10, 1981

Board determines employee status of 15 college positions, excluding 11 as managerial and including 4.

The applicant union applied under section 82 of The Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, 1975 to determine whether the incumbents of 15 positions at the respondent college were 'employees' within the meaning of the Act.

The respondent argued that the positions were excluded as managerial or confidential.

The Board found that 11 first-line supervisors exercised sufficient managerial authority, including handling grievances and monitoring performance, to be excluded from the bargaining unit.

However, the Board found that four other positions, including a Programmer Analyst, Systems Analyst, Payroll Assistant, and Payroll Clerk, did not have regular and material involvement in confidential matters and were therefore employees included in the bargaining unit.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology, 1981 CanLII 957

Lawrence S. Crackower

5 cases1981–2012

Elizabeth McIntyre

27 cases1981–2016

Roy F. Egan

OLRB0 cases1981–1981

J. A. Ronson

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 30, 1981

Employer violated statutory freeze period by revoking employee's privilege of not working Saturdays and discharging her.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by discharging an employee for refusing to work on Saturdays.

The Board found no evidence of violations under sections 58 or 61.

However, the Board determined that the employee had a long-standing privilege of not working on Saturdays, which the employer altered without the union's consent during the statutory freeze period following certification.

The Board held that the employer violated section 70 of the Act and ordered the employee's reinstatement with full compensation.

International Beverage Dispensers and Bartenders Union, Local 280 v. Cloverleaf Hotel, Division of MIB Holdings Ltd., 1981 CanLII 846

R. G. Halstead

L. Gosselin

J. McCormack

2 cases1981–2003

F. J. W. Bickford

16 cases1981–1994

M. G. Mitchnick

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 25, 1981

Head Nurses excluded from bargaining unit after changes to duties demonstrated exercise of managerial functions.

The applicant hospital applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether its Head Nurses were 'employees' within the meaning of the Act.

Following an amalgamation with an adjacent hospital, the employer revised the Head Nurses' job descriptions to align with the other hospital's structure, where Head Nurses were excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board found that significant material changes had occurred in the Head Nurses' duties, including independent authority to grant time off, require overtime, monitor attendance, and participate in hiring and discipline.

The Board concluded that the Head Nurses exercised managerial functions and were no longer 'employees' under section 1(3)(b) of the Act.

Westmount Hospital v. Ontario Nurses' Association, 1981 CanLII 1033

D. K. Robinson

2 cases1981–1995

Ian C. A. Springate

OLRB0 cases1980–1981

H.J.F. Ade

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 10, 1981

Union's complaint of unlawful discharge dismissed as employer proved termination was for legitimate misconduct.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged by the respondent employer because of his involvement in a union organizing campaign, contrary to section 58 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer maintained that the grievor was discharged due to a series of workplace misconduct incidents, including a vehicle accident, drinking on the job, and an insurance premium increase related to his driving record.

The Board found that the employer had no knowledge of the grievor's union activities and that the discharge was based on legitimate reasons free of anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. City-Wide Scale Co. Ltd., 1981 CanLII 843

Norman Rivard

M. Powell

4 cases1980–1981

Michael Horan

38 cases1980–2001

Laurence C. Arnold

24 cases1981–2001

J. Hoyles

F. Rovet

M. G. Mitchnick

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 6, 1981

Newly-formed employees' association granted trade union status; representation vote ordered despite incumbent union's objections.

The applicant, a newly-formed employees' association, applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent's mill operation, who were currently represented by the intervener union.

The intervener challenged the applicant's trade union status and the voluntariness of its membership evidence, arguing that an employee involved in organizing the association was perceived as managerial.

The Board found that the applicant met the requirements for trade union status under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also held that the organizing employee did not exercise managerial functions and would not have been perceived by other employees as acting on behalf of management.

The Board directed the appointment of an officer to settle the list of employees and arrange a representation vote.

The Elk Lake Planing Mill Employees Association v. Elk Lake Planing Mill Limited, 1981 CanLII 874

Michael Horan

38 cases1980–2001

M. G. Mitchnick

J. D. Bell

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 13, 1981

Request to reconsider dismissal of union decertification application denied due to management presence during petition circulation.

The applicant requested the Board to reconsider its decision dismissing an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The applicant argued the Board's decision was contrary to the weight of evidence and that the Board applied overly strict rules to the petition.

The Board found no new grounds for reconsideration, noting that the petition was circulated in a cafeteria where supervisors were present, making it impossible to conclude the signatures represented a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

Homida Ali v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (U.A.W.), 1981 CanLII 963

M. G. Picher

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 10, 1981

Work Measurement Applicators excluded from bargaining unit due to managerial functions and confidential labour relations capacity.

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

The parties disputed the employment status of three Work Measurement Applicators.

The employer argued they should be excluded from the unit because they exercised managerial functions and were confidentially employed in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board found that the Work Measurement Applicators made decisions on behalf of the company that directly affected employee wages and represented the company in the grievance procedure.

Consequently, the Board concluded they exercised managerial responsibilities and were confidentially employed, excluding them from the bargaining unit.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

United Steelworkers of America v. Storwal International Inc., 1981 CanLII 986

Paul Wearing

26 cases1981–2021

Michael Gordon

40 cases1980–1991

Maureen Kenny

2 cases1981–1982

R. D. Howe

J. D. Bell

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 5, 1981

Employer found to have laid off employees partly due to anti-union animus; reinstatement ordered.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer laid off sixteen employees to interfere with a union organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the layoffs were due to automation and economic reasons.

Applying the reverse onus under section 79(4a) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board found that while some layoffs were justified by business reasons, the extent of the layoffs was motivated in part by anti-union animus upon the employer learning of the certification application.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the four most senior laid-off employees with compensation.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Starplex Scientific Division of Canadian Medical Laboratories Limited, 1981 CanLII 985

Martin Addario

15 cases1981–2016

Marjorie Chatland

J. Turner-Bone

Jeffrey Egner

7 cases1980–1981

Janice A. Baker

6 cases1980–1993

R. D. Howe

J. A. Ronson

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 1, 1981

Board has jurisdiction under s. 95(2) to determine if persons are employees of a specific employer.

The applicant union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain persons were employees of the respondent.

The respondent and intervener objected to the jurisdiction of the Board Officer to conduct an inquiry, arguing that there was no 'question' as to employee status since they conceded the persons were employees within the meaning of the Act, just not employees of the respondent.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that it has jurisdiction under section 95(2) to determine not only if a person is an employee, but also whether they are an employee of the specific employer party to the collective agreement.

The Board revised the Board Officer's appointment to inquire into whether the individuals are employees of the respondent.

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1000 v. Ontario Hydro, 1981 CanLII 3549

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

Alick Ryder, Q. C.

17 cases1980–1988

M. G. Mitchnick

F. W. Murray

B. L. Armstrong