C. A. Ballentine

G. Grossman

A.M. Minsky

11 cases1980–2008

J. Wilson

Ian Springate

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 9, 1982

Minister has authority to appoint arbitration nominee as collective agreement covers non-construction work.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a nominee to an arbitration board on behalf of the employer.

The employer objected to the appointment, arguing that the collective agreement only applied to the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, whereas the grievances related to non-construction work.

The Board found that through its membership in the Ontario Painting Contractors Association, the employer had authorized the association to bargain on its behalf for both construction and non-construction work.

Consequently, the provincial agreement bound the employer for non-construction work as well.

The Board advised the Minister that he had the authority to appoint a nominee.

London Sandblasting & Painting Limited v. International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades, 1982 CanLII 1038

Douglas Wray

10 cases1980–2017

Brian O'Bryne

2 cases1982–2010

Pamela C. Picher

C. G. Bourne

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 9, 1982

Complaints of unlawful strike dismissed; brief work stoppage to resolve dispute did not warrant remedy.

The employer filed complaints alleging the union violated the Labour Relations Act by calling an unlawful strike and breaching a prior settlement agreement.

A union business agent had instructed employees to remain in the cafeteria for 15 minutes past their break to resolve a dispute between managers.

The Board assumed a technical breach of the Act but declined to issue a remedy, noting the stoppage was brief, unpremeditated, and resolved the underlying issue.

The Board also found no clear violation of the settlement agreement.

The complaints were dismissed.

Steinberg Inc. (Miracle Food Mart Division) v. Teamsters Local Union No. 419, 1982 CanLII 1045

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 3, 1982

Union certified for construction labourers despite employer's limited Ontario presence and Quebec decree.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The respondent, a Quebec-based company, argued that its limited presence in Ontario and the application of the Quebec Construction decree made certification inappropriate.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the respondent's limited presence and the Quebec decree did not preclude certification under Ontario law.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board granted the application and issued certificates for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic area.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1036 v. Common Construction Company Ltd., 1982 CanLII 1034

R. Quinn

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

B. D. Mulroney

M. G. Mitchnick

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 2, 1982

Decertification application dismissed because the supporting petition was circulated by a working foreman, vitiating voluntariness.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act.

The application was supported by a petition signed by employees.

However, the petition was initiated and circulated by a working foreman who had supervisory responsibilities and was perceived to have the authority to recommend discipline.

The Board found that due to the foreman's significant involvement, the petition could not be accepted as a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes.

The application for decertification was therefore dismissed.

John Heeney v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, 1982 CanLII 1047

W James Stuckey

Peter Hitchen

2 cases1981–1982

L. C. Arnold

38 cases1980–1992

lan Roland

G. Balanzin

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

Ian Springate

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 18, 1982

Segregated ballots of construction workers not at work on the voter eligibility date were excluded.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, a pre-hearing representation vote was held where six individuals cast segregated ballots.

The Board determined that one individual was a field superintendent exercising managerial functions and thus not an employee under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board further held that the remaining five individuals, who were not actually at work on the terminal date fixed for determining voter eligibility due to layoff or vacation, were not eligible to vote.

The Board reaffirmed its practice in the construction industry of only counting persons actually at work on the relevant date as employees.

The segregated ballots were not counted.

Labourers' International Union of North America v. Diplock Durable Floor Company Limited, 1982 CanLII 952

Ugo Rossini

Tom Connolly

6 cases1982–2021

P. M. Rusak

6 cases1980–1997

Phil Gauthier

2 cases1982–1982

Paul Falzone

9 cases1982–1999

N. Waldbillg

Lorne Richmond

21 cases1982–2022

Laurence C. Arnold

24 cases1981–2001

J. Sack, Q.C.

6 cases1982–1984

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 30, 1982

Board has jurisdiction over work assignment dispute where collective agreements lack mutual dispute-settlement mechanism.

The complainants requested a direction under section 91 of the Act regarding a work assignment dispute on a pipeline project.

The respondent unions raised a preliminary objection, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) because the collective agreements required referring such disputes to a mutually selected tribunal.

The Board found that while one collective agreement contained a specific jurisdictional dispute mechanism, the other did not.

Therefore, the collective agreements did not establish a mutual dispute-settlement mechanism that would exclude the Board's jurisdiction.

The preliminary objection was dismissed and the matter was listed for a hearing on the merits.

Labourers' International Union of North America Ontario Provincial District Council v. O.J. Pipelines Ltd., 1982 CanLII 929

William Mills

3 cases1980–1982

Steven J. MeCormack

Peter Nalewaik

James K. A. Hayes

12 cases1980–2005

David Weeks

Brain Herlich

11 cases1982–1988

J. Wilson

George W. Adams

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 15, 1982

Board establishes formula for calculating monetary losses arising from bad faith bargaining during a strike.

The Board determined the appropriate measure and period of entitlement for monetary losses arising from the respondent's bad faith bargaining.

The Board held that the period of entitlement ran from April 1, 1980, to December 3, 1980.

For the period between April 1 and June 17, 1980, damages were limited to the net monetary claim, reflecting the difference between what employees would have received had they continued to work and the 9% increase that would have resulted from good faith bargaining.

From June 18 to December 3, 1980, striking employees were entitled to their gross monetary claim.

The Board also ruled that grievors were obligated to mitigate their losses after February 13, 1981.

United Steelworkers of America v. Fotomat Canada Limited, 1982 CanLII 924

T Lybarger

L. Turtle

J. Fitzpatrick

2 cases1982–2019

H. M. Pollit

8 cases1980–1987

F. Piserchia

F. Hannah

B. Shell

5 cases1982–1996

B. R. Baldwin

8 cases1981–1991

Art Jenkyn

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

E.N. Davis

OLRB0 cases1981–1982

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 6, 1982

Board assumes jurisdiction under section 91(18) to resolve conflicting bargaining unit descriptions, declining to defer to arbitration.

The applicant employer sought to alter the descriptions of conflicting bargaining units in collective agreements with two different unions under section 91(18) of the Labour Relations Act.

One union argued the Board should defer to arbitration.

The Board held that section 91(18) is a separate charging section designed to resolve representational disputes arising from conflicting bargaining unit descriptions in industrial-type collective agreements.

The Board declined to defer to arbitration because an arbitration board could not provide the requested relief of altering the bargaining unit descriptions, and decided to entertain the application.

Camco Inc. v. United Steelworkers of America, 1982 CanLII 921

S. C. Bernardo

42 cases1980–2001

Ron Speight

Jack Porter

3 cases1981–1985

Harold F. Caley

51 cases1980–2003

Frank Yong

Alex J. Ahee

5 cases1981–1992

Ian Springate

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 31, 1982

Board lacks jurisdiction over work assignment dispute where collective agreement requires referral to mutually selected tribunal.

The complainants filed a complaint regarding a work assignment dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

The collective agreement required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB).

The complainants argued the IJDB was no longer operating, but failed to provide evidence or actually refer the matter to it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that under section 91(14) of the Act, it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint because the parties had mutually selected a tribunal to resolve the dispute and that process had not been frustrated.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 527 v. Dominion Bridge Company Ltd., 1982 CanLII 899

Jane Forbes-Roberts

2 cases1982–1982

H. Goldblatt

16 cases1980–1988

Ian Springate

C. G. Bourne

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 25, 1982

Union certified without a vote as employer actions tainted the voluntariness of an employee statement of desire.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The employer and a group of objecting employees opposed the application, filing a statement of desire signed by several employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

The Board found that the employer had engaged in actions, including changing a key union supporter's shifts and altering pay cheque distribution days, that would likely be viewed as a response to the union organizing campaign.

Furthermore, the involvement of an individual perceived as connected to management in the origination of the statement of desire led the Board to conclude that the statement did not represent a voluntary expression of the employees' wishes.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and certified the union.

International Molders & Allied Workers Union v. Washington Mills Limited, 1982 CanLII 917

William Jemison

2 cases1982–1995

Robin B. Cumine

23 cases1981–2015

N. Wilson

J. Phair

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

M. G. Picher

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 18, 1982

Board advises Minister to amend employer bargaining agency designation to reflect applicant's newly incorporated status.

The Minister referred a request to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 139 of the Labour Relations Act to amend an employer bargaining agency designation.

The applicant, previously an unincorporated association, incorporated to facilitate normal business transactions and sought to have the designation amended to reflect its new corporate status.

The Board found that the incorporated association had the full capacity to function as a designated employer bargaining agency and that the amendment would not adversely affect collective bargaining in the construction industry.

The Board advised the Minister to accede to the application.

Ontario Erectors Association, Incorporated v. International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Iron Workers District Council of Ontario, 1982 CanLII 907

William Robb

R. C. Filion

29 cases1980–1996

Philip Sanders

M. Addario

3 cases1982–1989

L. Guest

2 cases1982–2017

L. C. Arnold

38 cases1980–1992

L. Bertuzzi

14 cases1982–2001

.J. Fabian

G. Grossman

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

D. E. Franks

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 5, 1982

Interim order for work assignment denied as no strike was imminent or occurring due to the assignment.

The complainant trade council sought an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act to restore a work assignment after the respondent employer cancelled a general contract and announced its intention to complete the remaining construction work using its own employees.

The Board declined to issue the interim order, finding that the statutory requirement of an imminent or existing strike 'by reason of the assignment of work' was not met, as there were no building trades employees left on the site to strike, and the picketing did not stop the employer's own employees from working.

The main complaint was referred for further processing.

The Sarnia Building and Construction Trades Council v. Polysar Limited, 1982 CanLII 909

B. W. Adams

8 cases1980–1995

Brian P. Smeenk

34 cases1982–2012

Ian Springate

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 30, 1982

Grievance dismissed; company president performing bargaining unit work is not an employee subject to union referral rules.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the Carpenters' provincial agreement by failing to hire local union members or obtain a referral slip for carpentry work performed on a construction project.

The work was performed entirely by the president of the respondent company.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the president was a managerial person and not an 'employee' within the meaning of the collective agreement's transfer and hiring provisions.

As such, he was not prohibited from performing the work or required to obtain a referral slip.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1988 v. G. Lavictoire and Brothers Ltd., 1982 CanLII 821

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

G. Grossman

B. W. Binning

11 cases1980–2000

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

D. E. Franks

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 29, 1982

Grievance allowed in part; employer breached steward protection clause but properly hired emergency apprentices.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement regarding emergency help, the hiring of first-year apprentices, and the lay-off of a job steward.

The Board dismissed the grievances relating to the emergency help and apprentices, finding that the union's telegram did not effectively end the emergency as it did not supply replacement workers, and that the employer was entitled to hire new first-year apprentices under the agreement.

However, the Board allowed the grievance regarding the job steward, finding that the employer violated the agreement by terminating the steward while there were still more than six men on the overall job site.

One Board member dissented on the dismissal of the first two issues.

International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95 v. Lewis Insulation Services Inc., 1982 CanLII 820

J. Wilson

Ian Springate

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 16, 1982

Request for reconsideration denied; no conflict found between craft and labourer bargaining unit descriptions.

The applicant, Harold R. Stark Company Limited, requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision dismissing a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant argued that the matter should be treated under section 91(18) due to an alleged conflict between the bargaining unit descriptions in the U.A. and Labourers' provincial agreements.

The Board found no conflict in the recognition clauses, noting that the U.A. agreement covered a craft unit while the Labourers' agreement covered construction labourers.

The Board concluded that any conflict arose from competing work jurisdictions rather than bargaining unit descriptions, and denied the request for reconsideration.

A dissenting board member would have treated the matter as a jurisdictional dispute.

Harold R. Stark Company Limited v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 463, 1982 CanLII 819

Thomas Stefanik

17 cases1982–2016

Bill Heslop

3 cases1982–1994

Kevin M. Burkett

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 1, 1982

Certification under section 8 denied as employer's unfair labour practices did not prevent ascertaining employees' true wishes.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested the Board apply section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices that prevented the ascertainment of the employees' true wishes.

The Board found that the employer violated the Act when a manager attempted to elicit information from an employee about the union and suggested forming an employee association.

However, the Board concluded that this violation, along with a previously remedied unlawful termination, did not make it unlikely that the true wishes of the employees could be ascertained.

The application for certification under section 8 was dismissed, but the Board ordered the employer to cease and desist from unlawful interference and to post and distribute a notice to employees.

Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers v. Charterways Transportation Limited, 1982 CanLII 813

Maurice A. Green

34 cases1980–2009

Gary Walker

3 cases1981–1982

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

N. B. Satterfield

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 30, 1982

Certification application dismissed because the union obtained membership support by unlawfully threatening to picket the site.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent rodmen employed by the respondent construction company.

The respondent and interveners alleged that the applicant unlawfully coerced the respondent into hiring two of its members by threatening to picket the construction site, which would likely cause an unlawful strike.

The Board found that the applicant's representative did threaten to picket the site if the respondent did not replace members of another union with its own members.

The Board held that this threat constituted a threat of an unlawful strike under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

Because the employment of the two union members was obtained through this unlawful conduct, the Board refused to recognize them as employees for the purpose of the certification application, resulting in the dismissal of the application due to insufficient membership support.

International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers Local 721 et al. v. Folgor Construction Limited, 1982 CanLII 854

Vincent Gentile

5 cases1981–1994

R. W. Kitchen

6 cases1982–1994

James W. Hammond

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

David Bloom

34 cases1982–2017

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

Ian Springate

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 22, 1982

Board directs representation vote, finding employee petition voluntary despite employer's announcement of written policies.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and filed membership evidence for over 55% of the bargaining unit.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire (petition) opposing the union, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union cards.

The union argued the petition was not voluntary because the employer had announced new written policies and benefits shortly after receiving notice of the certification application, allegedly violating the statutory freeze.

The majority of the Board found that the employer's actions were part of an ongoing process and did not unduly influence the employees, concluding the petition was voluntary and directing a representation vote.

A dissenting Board member found the employer's actions violated the statutory freeze and unlawfully interfered with the employees' choice.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. C S P Foods Ltd., 1982 CanLII 848

G. Grossman

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine