C. A. Ballentine

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 4, 1982

Board has jurisdiction to interpret collective agreement language despite jurisdictional dispute overtones in grievance.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to consider established industry practices when assigning work.

The respondents argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was a jurisdictional dispute that should be resolved by the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board.

The Board held that it has jurisdiction to interpret the language of the collective agreement, even if the grievance has jurisdictional overtones, and directed the matter to be listed for continuation of hearing.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada v. The Electrical Power Systems Construction Association and Ontario Hydro, 1982 CanLII 859

M. G. Mitchnick

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 2, 1982

Board appoints officer to inquire into employee status of Senior Co-ordinators and Co-ordinators.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether persons occupying the positions of Senior Co-ordinator and Co-ordinator are employees for the purposes of the Act.

The respondent hospital opposed the application on various grounds, including that the positions had existed since 1971 without challenge.

The Board noted that the onus is on the party seeking to alter the status quo.

The Board appointed an officer to inquire into and report on the duties and responsibilities of the disputed positions.

Ontario Nurses' Association v. Belleville General Hospital, 1982 CanLII 847

Ian Springate

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 7, 1982

Employer's application to terminate union bargaining rights for failure to commence bargaining within sixty days dismissed.

The applicant employer sought a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights under section 59(2) of the Act, alleging the union failed to commence bargaining within sixty days of giving notice.

The Board found that while negotiations were delayed due to employee layoffs and scheduling difficulties, the union had not abandoned its bargaining rights and was actively preparing proposals.

The Board held that section 59 is not intended to allow employers to trigger representation votes simply because sixty days have elapsed, especially when employees had their own opportunity to file a representation application.

The application was dismissed.

Prescott Machine and Welding Inc. v. Energy and Chemical Workers Union and it Local Union No. 1, 1982 CanLII 1075

L. Steinberg

45 cases1982–2001

Ken Weller

1 case1982–1982

Harold F. Caley

51 cases1980–2003

C. M. Mitchell

38 cases1980–1999

C. De Toni

6 cases1982–1989

R. A. Furness

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 29, 1982

Board refused to certify facts for a bench warrant, requiring the applicant to enforce its own subpoenas.

During a certification application, the respondent's counsel failed to appear after an adjournment request was refused.

The applicant sought to introduce alleged prior statements of an absent witness as admissions against interest, which the Board refused due to their prejudicial value.

The applicant also requested the Board to certify facts to the Supreme Court for a bench warrant to enforce subpoenas against two absent witnesses.

The Board declined, ruling that the applicant must take responsibility for enforcing its own subpoenas.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Fantin Bros. Carpentry Limited, 1982 CanLII 1052

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

Bruce Binning

40 cases1981–1998

R. A. Furness

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 23, 1981

Grievance for waiting time penalties dismissed due to promissory estoppel from union's assurance regarding mailed cheques.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by failing to provide laid-off employees with their final wages and termination documents within 48 hours.

The employer had mailed the cheques, which arrived several days late.

The Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the union's secretary had implicitly assured the employer during a telephone call that mailing the documents was satisfactory.

The Board held that the employer relied on this assurance, creating a promissory estoppel that prevented the union from enforcing the strict 48-hour time limit and claiming waiting time penalties.

A dissenting Board member would have upheld the grievance and awarded the penalty.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 38 v. Carwood Store Fixtures Limited, 1981 CanLII 838

W. Gibson

OLRB0 cases1980–1990

Ian Springate

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 18, 1981

Board defers examination of additional employees for managerial exclusion pending determination of initially challenged employee.

In two applications for union certification, the respondent employer requested that a Labour Relations Officer examine three additional employees for managerial exclusion if the union's challenge to another employee's status was successful.

The Board deferred the examination of the three additional employees until the status of the initially challenged employee was determined.

The Board also addressed the inclusion of certain employees on both the carpenters' and labourers' lists, noting that if the parties agreed an employee was re-classified between the two application dates, they could be included on both lists.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 785 v. Watcon Inc., 1981 CanLII 1024

Win. R. Herridge

2 cases1981–1981

Steven Stuart

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

Ed Crootenboer

E.A. Ford

6 cases1980–1986

Daniel Frizuk

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

H.J.F. Ade

D. E. Franks

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 15, 1981

Work assignment complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as no demand for work was made.

The complainant union filed a work assignment complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act after its members were removed from a job site.

The respondent union challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that no demand was ever made to the employer to assign work to members of a particular union.

The Board agreed, finding that the cancellation of the subcontractor's contract did not constitute a demand for work assignment within the meaning of section 91.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Chatham Construction Workers Association, Local 53 v. The Heavy Construction Association of Windsor et al., 1981 CanLII 816

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

K. W. Kort

12 cases1981–1999

Ian Springate

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 8, 1981

Employer's unreasonable delay in filing grievance limits retroactive damage claim for unlawful strike.

The employer referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the union engaged in an unlawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The union argued that the employer was estopped from claiming damages because it had delayed filing the grievance for eight months while acquiescing to the union's conduct.

The Board found that while estoppel might not strictly apply, the employer's unreasonable delay in asserting its rights under the collective agreement warranted limiting the retroactive period for which damages could be claimed.

The Board restricted the employer's damage claim to the period subsequent to March 10, 1980, and directed that the matter be re-listed for hearing on the merits for that period.

Sinclair Welding Limited v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, 1981 CanLII 975

Philip J. Wolfenden

16 cases1980–2011

Gordon L. Robson

21 cases1981–2013

Doug Bender

W. Gibson

OLRB0 cases1980–1990

Ian Springate

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 19, 1981

Board defined construction industry bargaining units and appointed an officer to resolve employee list disputes.

Two trade unions applied for certification to represent carpenters and construction labourers employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining units, including both the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector province-wide and all other sectors in the relevant geographic areas.

Because the unions challenged the accuracy of the employee lists filed by the respondent, and there was overlap between the lists of carpenters and labourers, the Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the composition of the bargaining units and report back before making a final determination on certification.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 785 v. Watcon Inc., 1981 CanLII 1025

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

Donald B. Laidlaw

2 cases1981–2012

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Ian Springate

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 19, 1981

Subito and Pioneer declared a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that three respondent companies constituted a single employer, or alternatively, that a sale of a business occurred under section 63.

The Board found no sale of business from CM to Pioneer and declined to treat them as a single employer, noting the union had historically treated CM and Subito as separate entities.

However, the Board found that Subito and Pioneer, despite operating at different times, were associated businesses under common direction and control.

The Board exercised its discretion to declare Subito and Pioneer a single employer, binding them to the provincial agreement in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 446 v. Subito Contracting (Drywall & Painting Co. Limited et al., 1981 CanLII 987

Robert Reece

R. C. Ward

Paul Bates

M. B. Dennison

Ken Petryshen

17 cases1980–1985

James B. Noonan

17 cases1980–2000

James Bartlett

Don Swait

2 cases1981–1992

Ian Springate

C. G. Bourne

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 16, 1981

Union certification granted; statements of desire opposing certification lacked proof of voluntariness.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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

A group of employees filed statements of desire in opposition to the application.

The Board found that the voluntariness of the signatures of three union members who signed the statements of desire was not proven, as the person who witnessed most signatures did not witness theirs, and there was no evidence regarding the circumstances of their signing.

Consequently, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to direct a representation vote and granted the certification.

One Board member dissented, arguing a representation vote should have been held.

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Greb Industries, 1981 CanLII 894

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

E. J. Brady

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 2, 1981

Union breached duty of fair representation by arbitrarily handling member's overtime and discharge grievances.

The complainant alleged that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to properly process his grievances regarding overtime distribution and his subsequent discharge.

He also alleged the employer discharged him for filing the overtime grievance, contrary to section 66(a).

The Board found the union acted arbitrarily and with a non-caring attitude in handling the grievances, violating section 68.

The Board deferred the section 66(a) complaint against the employer to arbitration, ordering the union to engage independent counsel to revise and process the grievances to arbitration at its own expense.

Marcel Fortin v. Bedard Girard Ontario et al., 1981 CanLII 823

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Mark Conini

N. B. Satterfield

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 29, 1981

Employer bound by provincial collective agreement in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent violated a collective agreement.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing it was not bound by any collective agreement with the applicants.

The Board found that the respondent had signed a short-form agreement in 1973 that bound it to the provincial agreement.

While the respondent had not assigned its bargaining rights to the employer bargaining agency for all sectors, it was bound by the provincial agreement in respect of the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector by operation of the Act.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease violating the agreement in that sector.

Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen v. Fred Jantz Masonry Construction Company Limited, 1981 CanLII 802

R. Speight

R. A. Werry

38 cases1980–1994

Matt Bakker

Jack Porter

3 cases1981–1985

Harold F. Caley

51 cases1980–2003

A. W. Bell

2 cases1981–1992

Alex J. Ahee

5 cases1981–1992

Ian Springate

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 22, 1981

Board defers work assignment complaint to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board per collective agreement.

The complainant union filed a complaint regarding a work assignment dispute.

The respondent union argued the Board should defer consideration of the complaint under sections 81(13) and 81(14) of the Labour Relations Act, as the collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board for the Construction Industry.

The Board agreed and postponed its inquiry to allow the matter to be referred to the mutually selected tribunal.

United Association of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 527 v. Dominion Bridge Company Ltd., 1981 CanLII 868

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

D. I. Wakely

11 cases1980–1989

W. H. Gibson

OLRB0 cases1981–1981

D. E. Franks

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 21, 1981

Board limits construction industry bargaining unit to trades covered by the provincial agreement under section 131a.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry, seeking two bargaining units: one for carpenters under section 131a(1) of the Labour Relations Act, and a second for labourers and bricklayers under section 6(1).

The Board held that section 131a deals with all applications for certification in the construction industry, and any finding of an appropriate unit under section 6(1) must be made within the confines of section 131a.

Because labourers and bricklayers would not be covered by the provincial agreement relating to carpenters, they were not appropriate for inclusion in the unit.

The Board limited the appropriate unit to carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Clarence H. Graham Construction Limited, 1981 CanLII 844

W. S. O'Neil

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Maurice A. Green

34 cases1980–2009

H. A. Beresford

14 cases1980–1989

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

R. A. Furness

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 17, 1981

Board rules on burden of proof for authority to commence proceedings and dismisses s. 60 complaint.

The complainants filed a complaint alleging that the respondents breached the Labour Relations Act by concluding collective agreements without consulting them or allowing ratification.

The respondents brought a preliminary motion to strike out certain complainants, arguing they lacked the authority to commence the proceeding.

The Board held that the evidential burden to show authority rested with the complainants, as the facts were peculiarly within their knowledge, but the legal burden to prove lack of authority remained with the respondents.

The Board also dismissed the complaint under section 60 of the Act, finding that the duty of fair representation only applies to employees in a bargaining unit, not to trade unions or their representatives.

The matter was referred to the Registrar for continuation.

The International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers District Council of Ontario v. The International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, 1981 CanLII 912

W. R. Herridge Q. C.

6 cases1980–1991

J. Sack

8 cases1980–1995

Joe Aggimenti

J. Adema

2 cases1980–1981

George Longo

2 cases1981–1983

F. Kuntz

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 2, 1981

Application for certification dismissed; Board declines to fragment established multi-location bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought to displace the incumbent union and be certified as the bargaining agent for employees at the respondent's Toronto nursing home.

The incumbent union argued that the appropriate bargaining unit was its existing comprehensive multi-location unit covering several nursing homes.

The Board found that the established multi-location bargaining structure had been in place for years without issue and was presumptively appropriate.

The Board declined to fragment the established unit, finding the proposed single-location unit inappropriate.

As the applicant lacked sufficient membership support in the broader unit, the application was dismissed.

Service Employees Union, Local 204 v. Bestview Holdings Limited, 1981 CanLII 1049

Trevor G. Byrne

Stanley Simpson

22 cases1981–2001

Peter Quinlan

10 cases1981–2022

Ian Springate

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 28, 1981

Grievance dismissed; Board found no sale of business where new company purchased minor assets.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that Braneida Mechanical Service Ltd. was bound by a provincial agreement due to a sale of a business from Oliver Plumbing and Heating Limited.

Oliver had ceased operations and liquidated its assets, with Braneida purchasing a small portion of its equipment and hiring some former employees.

The Board found that Braneida was a new business rather than a continuation of Oliver, and therefore dismissed the grievance, concluding there was no sale of a business under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act.

One Board member dissented.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 67 v. Braneida Mechanical Service Ltd., 1981 CanLII 829

Tom Fenwick

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

David M. McKee

Kevin M. Burkett

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

E. J. Brady

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

C. A. Ballentine