C. A. Ballentine

In Private Practice14 cases1983–2017

David Deluzio

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

J. A. Ronson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 18, 1983

Complaint dismissed due to extreme and unexplained delay of over five years causing prejudice.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer harassed him and the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation regarding events that occurred between 1974 and 1978.

The complaint was filed in 1982, with a notice of intention to rely on the earlier events served less than 24 hours before the hearing in 1983.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to inquire into the complaint, exercising its discretion under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, due to the extreme delay of over five years, the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the resulting prejudice to the respondents, including the destruction of records and the death of a key witness.

Kazimir Cigan v. International Union, United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Workers of America, Local 444 and Chrysler Canada Ltd., Windsor, 1983 CanLII 728

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

Israel Palter

2 cases1983–1983

Howard Levitt

9 cases1981–2012

Brain Herlich

11 cases1982–1988

Alex Muse lius

A. D. G. Purdy

6 cases1981–1996

M. G. Picher

J. A. Ronson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 6, 1983

Employee petition to terminate union bargaining rights found voluntary; representation vote ordered.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights at the first open period following a difficult strike and first collective agreement.

The union argued the employee petition was not voluntary due to the applicant's perceived proximity to management, the open gathering of signatures at the plant gates, and prior management statements.

The majority of the Board found the petition was a voluntary expression of employee wishes, noting the applicant was not in a supervisory role and the context of the recent strike diminished concerns about secrecy.

A representation vote was ordered.

One Board member dissented, finding the petition was tainted by management involvement and the overall environment.

Marvin MacKay v. United Steelworkers of America, 1983 CanLII 734

Sylvia Corthorn

3 cases1983–2002

James B. Chadwick

2 cases1983–1983

Denis Power

7 cases1980–1989

J. A. Ronson

Ian Springate

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 18, 1983

Union certified under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act due to employer's unlawful discharge.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board previously found that the union lacked majority support without a disputed membership card and considered ordering a representation vote.

The union requested certification under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that the employer's unlawful discharge of a union supporter and involvement in employee statements of desire made a free representation vote unlikely.

The Board found that the employer's unlawful discharge of an employee for union activity would prevent the true wishes of employees from being freely ascertained in a vote.

The Board granted certification under section 8.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union 93 v. DI-AL Construction Limited, 1983 CanLII 917

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 10, 1983

Union certification application dismissed as membership documents failed to show payment of required fees.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and submitted confirmation documents as evidence of membership.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the documents did not indicate that the signatories had paid at least one dollar in initiation fees or monthly dues, as required by section 1(1)(l) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the Board determined that there was insufficient evidence of membership and dismissed the application.

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 128 v. Calorific Construction Company, 1983 CanLII 914

Terry V McCann

Robert Sheppard

104 cases1983–2023

Alexander J. Ahee

5 cases1982–2000

J. A. Ronson

Ian Springate

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 3, 1983

Employer not bound by provincial agreement where signed documents did not constitute formal voluntary recognition.

The union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer violated the provincial agreement.

The parties agreed to first determine whether the employer was actually bound by the agreement.

The Board found that although the employer had signed various documents, including a 'letter of assent' and a 'signing page', these were signed on the understanding they would not be enforced and did not constitute formal voluntary recognition.

The Board concluded the employer was not legally bound by the provincial agreement and terminated the proceedings.

The IBEW Construction Council of Ontario v. The Electrical Contractors Association of Ontario, 1983 CanLII 926

Philip J. Wolfenden

16 cases1980–2011

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

M. G. Picher

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 22, 1983

Reverse onus in unfair labour practice complaints does not violate Charter presumption of innocence.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor was discharged by the respondent employer because of his union sympathy, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent argued that the reverse onus provision in section 89(5) of the Act violated the presumption of innocence in section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that it had jurisdiction to consider the constitutional challenge but dismissed it, finding that section 89(5) is civil and remedial, not criminal, and thus does not contravene the Charter.

On the merits, the Board found overwhelming evidence that the employer unlawfully terminated the grievor and interfered with the union, ordering immediate reinstatement with compensation.

International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v Third Dimension Manufacturing Limited, 1983 CanLII 983

J. Sack, Q.C.

6 cases1982–1984

James Tobin

David A. McKee

16 cases1983–1997

C. M. Mitchell

38 cases1980–1999

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

H.J.F. Ade

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 27, 1983

A person producing documents under a subpoena duces tecum need not be sworn or cross-examined.

During a hearing, the applicant sought to prove documents produced under a subpoena duces tecum without calling the person who produced them as a witness, thereby avoiding cross-examination.

The Board initially ruled the documents must be proved by calling the person as a witness.

Upon reconsideration, the Board reviewed the historical and legal distinction between the ad testificandum and duces tecum aspects of a subpoena.

The Board revoked its previous ruling, holding that a person producing documents pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum does not need to be sworn as a witness and is not subject to cross-examination.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Heart Construction Co. Ltd., 1983 CanLII 810

Richard Nixon

23 cases1983–2016

R. G. Butcher

R. C. Filion

29 cases1980–1996

H. L. Van Wyck, Q. C.

2 cases1983–1983

C. Peterson

7 cases1983–2023

J. A. Ronson

G. Gail Brent

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 20, 1983

Board declined to hear bad faith bargaining complaint where union signed collective agreement after full disclosure.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer bargained in bad faith by failing to disclose its plans to change the role of a home for the aged and construct a new facility.

However, the union learned of these plans months before it signed a memorandum of settlement and a collective agreement.

The employer requested that the bad faith bargaining complaint be struck out.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to hear the complaint, finding that because the union had ample notice of the true state of affairs before concluding the collective agreement, it was not deprived of the opportunity to respond in bargaining.

As the complaint did not disclose a breach of the Act on its face, it was dismissed.

Ontario Nurses' Association v. Grey Owen Sound Joint Homes for the Aged (Grey-Owen Lodge), 1983 CanLII 809

J. Wilson

Ian Springate

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 19, 1983

Application for certification dismissed due to union's failure to file a proper Form 80 declaration.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant submitted membership evidence but failed to file a proper Form 80 declaration, instead submitting a custom document that omitted the required assurances regarding the authenticity of the membership documents.

Because the Board relies on documentary membership evidence without cross-examination, it requires these assurances.

Lacking a proper Form 80, the Board refused to give weight to the membership evidence and dismissed the application.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 18 v. Beatty-Hall Construction Co. Limited, 1983 CanLII 801

John Wakely

3 cases1983–1995

Gary V Williams

Kevin M. Burkett

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 14, 1983

Part-time bargaining unit description must mirror the full-time unit to avoid multiplicity of units.

The applicant union applied for certification of a unit of part-time office and clerical employees at the respondent hospital.

The parties disputed the geographic scope of the bargaining unit.

The respondent sought to restrict the unit to the municipality of Belleville, while the applicant sought a unit without geographic restriction, mirroring the existing full-time unit.

The Board applied its policy of mirroring part-time units with full-time units to avoid a multiplicity of bargaining units.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board granted the certification.

Service Employees International Union, Local 663 A.F. of L., C.I.O., C.L.C. v. Belleville General Hospital, 1983 CanLII 802

Philip P. Sanders

1 case1982–1982

Gordon Atlin, Q.C.

1 case1982–1982

Alex J. Ahee

5 cases1981–1992

Corinne F. Murray

OLRB0 cases1982–1985

C. G. Bourne

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 29, 1982

Employer breached Labour Relations Act by refusing to reinstate union steward after strike.

The complainants alleged that the respondent employer breached section 66(a) of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to return them to work following a legal strike.

The employer claimed the refusal was based on its policy not to reinstate employees charged with strike-related offences, and that the final list of non-returnees was negotiated with the union based on seniority.

The Board found no anti-union animus in the employer's general policy or its application to four of the complainants.

However, the Board concluded that the refusal to reinstate one complainant, a union steward and picket captain, was motivated by anti-union animus.

The Board ordered his reinstatement with compensation.

Chisholm et al. v. Dominion Citrus and Drug Ltd., 1982 CanLII 967

J P. Wearing

12 cases1980–1989

J. Michael Woogh

4 cases1982–2021

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

J. Wilson

Ian Springate

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 16, 1982

Majority of the Board found employee statements of desire opposing union certification were voluntary.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The union filed membership evidence for more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

However, statements of desire opposing the certification were also filed, signed by employees who had previously signed union cards.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the statements of desire were voluntary.

The majority of the Board concluded that the statements were signed voluntarily, as management was not involved in their origination or circulation, and the employees did not sign out of fear of employer reprisals.

A dissenting Board member found that management had created a climate that thwarted voluntary expression.

The matter was directed to continue for hearing in conjunction with a related unfair labour practice complaint.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 249 v. R & H Doornekamp Sons Ltd., 1982 CanLII 973

S. Tatrallyay

2 cases1982–1983

Michael G. Horan

22 cases1980–2000

E. L. Stringer

8 cases1982–1997

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

M. G. Mitchnick

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 14, 1982

Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as petition signed during mass work absence lacked voluntariness.

The applicants sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

In support of the application, a group of employees left work en masse during working hours to sign a petition at the Labour Board.

The Board found that the employer's failure to question or prevent the mass departure would lead employees to believe management supported the petition and would know who did or did not participate.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition was not a voluntary expression of employee wishes and dismissed the application.

A dissenting board member would have directed a representation vote.

Concetta Fallico et al v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, 1982 CanLII 980

Denis Power

7 cases1980–1989

J. A. Ronson

Ian Springate

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 2, 1982

Board doubts reliability of union membership evidence obtained under misapprehension; matter relisted for section 8 arguments.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The union submitted membership evidence for three of five employees.

One employee signed a membership card after a union representative mistakenly told him he was working for a unionized firm and was required to join.

The employee later signed a resignation and a statement of desire opposing the union, with significant involvement from the employer's president.

The Board found the resignation and statement of desire were not voluntary due to management involvement.

However, because the employee signed the membership card under a misapprehension about his employer's union status, the Board doubted the reliability of the membership evidence and indicated a representation vote would normally be ordered.

The union requested certification under section 8, so the matter was relisted for hearing.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local Union 93 v. DI-AL Construction Limited, 1982 CanLII 966

R. C. Sills

2 cases1982–1983

Keith Billings

10 cases1980–2000

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

N. B. Satterfield

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 10, 1982

Employer bound by deemed recognition must enforce union security clause after giving employees notice to join.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial agreement by employing non-union sheet metal workers.

The Board previously found the respondent was bound by the provincial agreement pursuant to the deemed recognition provisions of section 137(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

In this continuation, the Board held that the respondent breached the union security provisions of the agreement.

The Board determined that damages should flow from January 15, 1982, the date the respondent received notice of the grievance.

Regarding the non-union employees, the Board found they were entitled to reasonable notice of their obligation to join the union.

The Board directed the respondent to discharge the employees if they failed to apply for union membership within five days of the decision.

Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' Conference v. Culliton Brothers Limited, 1982 CanLII 990

D. Strang

4 cases1982–1997

D. McGregor

1 case1982–1982

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

Ian Springate

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 8, 1982

Certification granted for construction labourers; Board refused to include other trades to preserve provincial bargaining scheme.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of construction employees.

The union requested a unit encompassing all trades in the respondent's employ, including those outside its designated employee bargaining agency.

The Board found such a unit inappropriate as it would disrupt the provincial bargaining scheme, restricting the unit to construction labourers.

The Board also declined to expressly include specific classifications like cement finishers in the unit description, though it added a clarity note confirming their inclusion.

Certificates were issued for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and for all other sectors in the relevant geographic area.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837 v. Ninco Construction Ltd., 1982 CanLII 1000

Nicholas P. Kapelos

In Private Practice8 cases1982–2022

Kevin M. Burkett

J. A. Ronson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 4, 1982

Employer bound by collective agreement signed by its secretary who had ostensible authority.

The complainant union filed a complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated the Labour Relations Act by repudiating a collective agreement.

The employer argued that its secretary, who signed the agreement, lacked the authority to do so.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the secretary had both real and ostensible authority to bind the company, given his position, past signing of agreements, and the employer's representations during bargaining.

The Board declared the collective agreement valid and binding, directing the employer to apply its terms retroactively.

Ontario Taxi Association, Local 1688, C.L.C. v. Maple Leaf Taxi Company Ltd., 1982 CanLII 997

L. Robinson

9 cases1982–2025

Ken Petryshen

17 cases1980–1985

Jim O'Donnell

6 cases1982–1997

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

M. G. Mitchnick

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 15, 1982

Speed Service delivery drivers excluded from warehouse bargaining unit due to distinct community of interest.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's Mississauga warehouse.

The parties disagreed on whether certain individuals exercised managerial functions and whether the 'Speed Service' delivery drivers should be included in the unit.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties of the disputed managerial individuals.

Regarding the Speed Service drivers, the Board found they had a fundamentally different working relationship and community of interest compared to the regular company drivers, as they used their own vehicles, were paid by commission, and had different hours and supervision.

Consequently, the Board excluded the Speed Service drivers from the proposed bargaining unit.

Teamsters Union Local 938 v. Alltour Marketing Support Services Limited, 1982 CanLII 1012

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

David Bloom

34 cases1982–2017

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine