B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 4, 1987

Certification application dismissed as the employer's security services for the Federal Government fall under federal jurisdiction.

The applicant union sought certification for security guards employed by the respondent.

The respondent challenged the Ontario Labour Relations Board's jurisdiction, arguing its operations fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that over 90% of the respondent's security services were provided to Federal Government departments and agencies, including tasks essential to their operation such as emergency evacuations and guarding sensitive areas.

Applying constitutional principles, the Board concluded that these services play a vital and integral role in federal operations, placing the labour relations of these employees within federal jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 1962 v. National Protective Service Company Limited, 1987 CanLII 3015

Susan Ursel

42 cases1985–2024

Stephen Richardson

Ray Fredette

2 cases1986–1987

Cohn D. McKinnon

2 cases1986–1987

Brian Ward

3 cases1987–1997

Owen V. Gray

F. C. Burnet

OLRB0 cases1984–1990

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 29, 1987

Bargaining unit for occasional teachers excludes unqualified supply instructors due to differing communities of interest.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The parties disputed whether 'supply instructors'—unqualified persons employed on an emergency basis to substitute for regular teachers—should be included in the same bargaining unit as qualified occasional teachers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that occasional teachers and supply instructors have different communities of interest due to statutory distinctions and employment aspirations.

The Board concluded that the appropriate bargaining unit should consist solely of occasional teachers, consistent with its past practice, and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

Ontario Catholic Occasional Teachers' Association v. Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board, 1987 CanLII 3005

Steven L. Moate

8 cases1985–1997

Maurice A. Green

34 cases1980–2009

Ivor Oram

7 cases1983–1987

Ian Roland

41 cases1980–2021

Fred Birket

2 cases1987–1988

Barbara J. Fickert

R. M. Sloan

OLRB0 cases1986–2000

R. 0. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–1999

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 22, 1987

Intervener's certification application dismissed for lacking 35% support as of the deemed application date.

In an application for certification, both the applicant union and the intervener union requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board had previously deemed the intervener's application to have been made on the same date as the original application.

The intervener argued that its membership support should be assessed as of its actual intervention date, as it gathered significant support after the original application date.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the deemed application date applies for assessing membership support under section 9(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the intervener lacked the requisite 35% support and its application was dismissed.

A two-way vote between the applicant and a 'no union' option was ordered.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Board of Education for the City of North York, 1987 CanLII 3004

Terry Thorpe

Stuart M. Robertson

Not Practising Law66 cases1981–2021

Peter Jacobsen

5 cases1980–1987

Nelson Roland

13 cases1986–2001

Mary Cornish

53 cases1981–2022

Laura Trachuk

8 cases1987–1992

Janice Baker

29 cases1980–2000

Brian Shell

Brian Greenaway

Patricia Hughes

OLRB0 cases1986–1991

D. A. MacDonald

OLRB0 cases1982–1994

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 6, 1987

Board permits complainant's adviser to attend view of premises and refuses to exclude press.

The complainants alleged contraventions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Labour Relations Act.

During preliminary matters, the Board ruled on two issues.

First, the Board ordered that the complainant's adviser be permitted to attend a view of the respondent's premises, finding it necessary for a fair hearing and noting no prejudice to the respondent.

Second, the Board dismissed the respondent's request to exclude the press from the hearing room, holding that hearings are presumptively open to the public and the respondent had not met the onus under section 9(1)(b) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to justify an in camera hearing.

Bonita Clark v. Steel Company of Canada, Inc., 1987 CanLII 2989

Susan Bazilli

5 cases1985–1986

Nelson Roland

13 cases1986–2001

M. Cornish

7 cases1981–1987

D. L. Brisbin

8 cases1980–1987

B. Cox-Graham

Robert D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1984–1995

I. M. Stamp

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 19, 1986

Employer committed numerous unfair labour practices, including surface bargaining and an unlawful lockout; first contract arbitration directed.

The union and an employee filed complaints alleging that the employer committed numerous unfair labour practices during a union organizing drive and subsequent collective bargaining.

The employer altered terms and conditions of employment during the statutory freeze period, disciplined union supporters, engaged in surface bargaining, and unlawfully locked out employees.

The Board found that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board ordered extensive remedial relief, including compensation for lost wages and benefits, rescission of unlawful discipline, and directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

Toronto Typographical Union, Local 91 v. Burlington Northern Air Freight (Canada) Ltd., 1986 CanLII 1518

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

I. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1983–1986

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 15, 1986

Board applies 30/30 rule to determine bargaining unit composition for casual relief nurses.

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification of a part-time bargaining unit at the Toronto General Hospital.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed whether casual relief nurses should be included in the count for certification purposes.

The Hospital argued for a broader inclusion based on a recent decision involving occasional teachers, while the union argued for the Board's standard '30/30 rule'.

The Board held that the 30/30 rule should apply, as the hospital industry did not warrant a departure from this established practice.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

Ontario Nurses' Association v. Toronto General Hospital, 1986 CanLII 1535

Stuart L. Dollar

L. N. Gottheil

24 cases1986–2012

Ian S. Campbell

19 cases1985–2012

J. A. Rundle

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRB0 cases1986–1999

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 9, 1986

Union certified without a vote; employee petitions rejected due to lack of evidence of voluntariness.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The union filed documentary evidence of membership demonstrating support well in excess of the 55% required for outright certification.

A group of objecting employees filed petitions indicating opposition to the union.

The Board found that the objecting employees failed to establish the voluntariness of the petitions, noting significant gaps in the evidence regarding their origination and circulation, as well as the involvement of individuals perceived as managerial.

The Board gave no weight to the petitions and granted certification to the applicant without a representation vote.

United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Custom Foam Specialities Limited, 1986 CanLII 1517

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. 0. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–1999

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 10, 1986

Board schedules adjourned certification applications for hearing rather than dismissing or further adjourning them.

The applicant union sought to represent various categories of teachers under the Labour Relations Act.

Several applications were adjourned sine die pending the resolution of test cases regarding whether the teachers were covered by the Labour Relations Act or the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

The respondent employers requested the applications be dismissed, while the union requested further adjournment pending judicial review of the test cases.

The Board declined both requests and directed that the applications be scheduled for hearing to resolve the outstanding issues.

Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation v. Lincoln County Board of Education, 1986 CanLII 1462

Steven L. Moate

8 cases1985–1997

Peter S. Roberts

Christopher C. White

R. J. Gallivan

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 31, 1986

Union certified for craft bargaining unit of theatrical wardrobe mistresses and attendants at Stratford Festival.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of theatrical wardrobe mistresses and attendants employed by the respondent at its Stratford theatres.

The Board first determined that the applicant was a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, noting that it had adopted a constitution, elected officers, and admitted members.

The Board then considered whether the proposed unit was an appropriate craft bargaining unit under section 6(3) of the Act.

Finding that the wardrobe staff exercised distinct technical skills, commonly bargained separately in the entertainment industry, and that the applicant pertained to such skills, the Board deemed the craft unit appropriate.

As more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, Local 924, Stratford v. The Stratford Shakespearean Festival Foundation of Canada, 1986 CanLII 1469

Wayne Hanley

2 cases1986–1990

Tom Zakrzewski

5 cases1986–1995

Robin W. McArthur

Leo J. Grandbois

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

Harold F. Caley

51 cases1980–2003

D. G. Collins

3 cases1986–1986

David Churchill-Smith

2 cases1986–1986

Charles R. Robertson

11 cases1984–2000

S. A. Tacon

OLRB0 cases1984–1991

G. 0. Shamanski

OLRB0 cases1986–1995

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 30, 1986

Store conversions constituted a sale of business; union scope clauses amended to resolve conflicting bargaining rights.

The applicant union brought applications under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act following the conversion of several New Dominion stores to A & P stores.

The Board found that the conversions constituted a transfer of part of a business, making A & P the successor employer.

To resolve the conflict between the province-wide bargaining rights of the applicant and the existing rights of the intervener unions at the converted stores, the Board amended the applicant's scope clause to exclude the converted stores by street address and added a clarity note to the interveners' scope clauses to preserve their bargaining rights at those specific locations, without restricting their broader geographic scope.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Locals 175 and 633 v. New Dominion Stores Inc., 1986 CanLII 1442

Rod Jamer

Richard Dubuc

R. C. Filion, Q. C.

4 cases1984–1986

Paul Pellettier

3 cases1986–1994

Naomi Duguid

17 cases1981–1986

Michael G. Horan

22 cases1980–2000

Kenneth J. Larone

Keith Drake

John Bryant

Jeffrey W. hearer

C. M. Mitchell

38 cases1980–1999

Brad Cundiff

Andrea E. Esson

2 cases1986–1992

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. 0. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–1999

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 3, 1986

Departmental bargaining unit for magazine editorial employees found inappropriate; all-employee unit required.

The applicant union sought certification for a departmental bargaining unit consisting of approximately 42 employees in the editorial department of TV Guide Magazine.

The respondent employer argued that the appropriate unit should encompass all employees of the magazine or both TV Guide and Canadian Living.

The Board found that the editorial department employees did not share a separate community of interest distinct from other employees, noting shared services, common terms of employment, and functional integration.

The Board rejected the union's proposed departmental unit, holding that an all-employee unit was appropriate, and directed the matter to be relisted for further hearing.

Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild v. TV Guide Inc., 1986 CanLII 1451

Win. E. Machika

Susan Bazilli

5 cases1985–1986

Nelson Roland

13 cases1986–2001

Joe Bigeau

D. Brisbin

Robert D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1984–1995

I. M. Stamp

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 1, 1986

Board arbitrates and settles first collective agreement between union and employer.

The parties agreed to have the Board arbitrate the settlement of their first collective agreement pursuant to section 40a(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board determined the matters in dispute, awarding moderate wage increases, extending sick leave and welfare benefits to permanent irregular employees, and limiting the employer's power to contract out work.

The Board accepted the matters agreed to by the parties and included a mandatory union membership provision as proposed by the employer.

The Board directed the execution of the arbitrated collective agreement.

Toronto Typographical Union, Local 91 v. Burlington Northern Air Freight (Canada) Ltd., 1986 CanLII 1430

Stanley Simpson

22 cases1981–2001

Ian S. Campbell

19 cases1985–2012

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

J. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1987

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 2, 1986

A single employee in a construction industry bargaining unit may apply to terminate bargaining rights.

The applicant, the sole employee in the bargaining unit, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued that the Board could not entertain the application because there must be more than one employee in the unit.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that in the construction industry, a single employee can apply to terminate bargaining rights.

The Board also found the applicant's statement of desire to be voluntary and directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the statute requires a plurality of employees for a termination application.

Richard Grandy v. The Ontario Pipe Trades Council of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 527, 1986 CanLII 1370

Owen V. Gray

D. A. MacDonald

OLRB0 cases1982–1994

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 26, 1986

Pre-hearing representation vote directed for occasional teachers with disputed ballots segregated and box sealed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The parties disagreed on the appropriate bargaining unit description, specifically regarding the inclusion of unqualified occasional teachers and part-time permanent teachers who also teach occasionally.

The Board directed a pre-hearing representation vote using the applicant's proposed voting constituency, ordering that ballots cast by persons alleged to be party to a permanent or probationary teaching contract be segregated and the ballot box sealed pending further determination of the appropriate bargaining unit.

Ontario Catholic Occasional Teachers' Association v. Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board, 1986 CanLII 1368

William S. Challis

9 cases1981–1995

S. B. D. WahI

11 cases1980–1994

H. M. Pollit

8 cases1980–1987

M. G. Mitchnick

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

I. M. Stamp

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 29, 1986

Board lacks jurisdiction under sections 89 and 135 of the Labour Relations Act to enforce the Transit Labour Disputes Act.

The complainant, a third-party contractor, sought relief under sections 89, 92, and 135 of the Labour Relations Act after its work was interrupted by a picket line established by the respondent unions.

The picket line was related to a dispute involving the Toronto Transit Commission, which was governed by the special Transit Labour Disputes Act.

The Board held that the special Act exhaustively enumerated the remedies available for its enforcement, which did not include sections 89 or 135 of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the section 89 and 135 complaints for lack of jurisdiction and directed the complainant to advise if it wished to proceed with the section 92 application.

Dominion Paving Limited v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, 1986 CanLII 1411

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 28, 1986

Board reconsiders certification decision to correct inadvertent inclusion of part-time production workers in tag-end unit.

The Board reconsidered its earlier decision certifying the union for a 'tag-end' bargaining unit.

The earlier unit description inadvertently included part-time production workers because it was framed broadly to avoid fragmentation.

The Board revoked the previous certificate and issued an interim certificate specifically for laboratory staff, pending submissions on the history of part-time laboratory employees.

Teamsters Chemical Energy & Allied Workers Union Local 424 v. Resco Chemicals & Colours Ltd., 1986 CanLII 1384

Owen V. Gray

I. M. Stamp

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 25, 1986

Pre-hearing representation vote directed with ballot box sealed pending filing of proper Form 9 Declaration.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board considered whether it could direct a vote despite the applicant's failure to file a new Form 9 Declaration for membership evidence transferred from a previous file.

The Board held that the absence of a proper Form 9 Declaration does not prevent the taking of a pre-hearing vote, but directed that the ballot box be sealed until a proper declaration is filed.

The Board also declined the applicant's request to conduct the vote by mail, noting the administrative costs and frailties of mailed ballots, and referred the method of voting to the Registrar.

Ontario Catholic Occasional Teachers' Association v. The Halton Roman Catholic Separate School Board, 1986 CanLII 1416

Owen V. Gray

I. M. Stamp

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 25, 1986

Pre-hearing representation vote directed for occasional teachers; request for mandatory mail ballot denied.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board found that not less than thirty-five per cent of the employees in the voting constituency were members of the applicant.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken among occasional teachers employed by the respondent.

The applicant requested that the vote be conducted by mail, but the Board declined to direct a mail vote, referring the method of voting to the Registrar in accordance with its recent policy shift regarding occasional teacher votes.

Ontario Catholic Occasional Teachers' Association v. Ottawa Catholic Separate School Board, 1986 CanLII 1424

W. Fairservice

S. Goldsworthy

J. P. Bennett

Ivar Starasts

3 cases1985–1987

Don Little

David Strang

16 cases1983–2000

C. C. White

6 cases1985–1991

M. G. Mitchnick

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

J. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1987

B. L. Armstrong