C. A. Ballentine

I. M. Stamp

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 19, 1984

Hearing adjourned to provide notice of termination application to the designated employee bargaining agency.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

At the hearing, a representative of the Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen appeared and argued that the Conference was entitled to notice of the proceedings because it was a party to the provincial agreement covering the employees.

The Board determined that the provincial agreement applied to all sectors of the construction industry and that the Conference, as the designated employee bargaining agency, was entitled to notice.

The Board adjourned the hearing to allow proper notice to be served on the Conference.

Steve Crowe, Fred Downer and Mel Davis v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsman Local #17, 1984 CanLII 1045

Owen V. Gray

OLRB0 cases1983–1992

I. M. Stamp

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 16, 1984

Pre-hearing representation vote directed despite defective membership receipts, with ballot box sealed pending further argument.

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

The membership evidence submitted with the application consisted of combination applications and receipts that lacked countersignatures from the collectors.

The union later submitted properly countersigned applications signed after the application date.

The Board held that only evidence of membership at the time the application was made could be considered under section 9(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board found that the initial evidence was qualitatively sufficient to create the required appearance of support to direct a pre-hearing vote.

The Board directed the vote but ordered the ballot box sealed pending further argument on whether the defects in the membership evidence could be cured by viva voce evidence to satisfy section 9(4) of the Act.

Energy and Chemical Workers Union v. Maple Leaf Mills Limited, Master Feeds Division, 1984 CanLII 1043

Paul Jarvis

12 cases1984–2000

John Grant

2 cases1984–2010

Ivor Starasts

Brian Christie

7 cases1984–2001

Alex Ahee

8 cases1983–1999

R. A. Furness

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 12, 1984

Grievance for subsistence allowance dismissed as grievor's regular residence remained near the project.

The applicant union referred a grievance alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to pay the grievor a subsistence allowance.

The grievor claimed his regular residence was in Nova Scotia, where his family had temporarily moved, while he remained in his Oshawa home and commuted to the project.

The Board found that the grievor's regular residence remained in Oshawa, as he continued to live, sleep, and eat there, and maintained financial commitments for the property.

The grievance was dismissed.

The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 463 v. The Electrical Power Systems Construction Association (EPSCA) and Ontario Hydro, 1984 CanLII 1044

Paul Falzone

9 cases1982–1999

C. E. Humphrey

23 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. O. MacDowell

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 28, 1984

A timely request for expedited statutory arbitration takes precedence over a collective agreement's arbitration process.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his jurisdiction to appoint a single arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer had requested an expedited arbitration under section 45 after the union had already initiated the tripartite arbitration process under the collective agreement.

The union argued that invoking the contractual process precluded the statutory expedited route.

The Board held that a timely request under section 45 takes precedence over the collective agreement's arbitration provisions, and therefore the Minister had jurisdiction to appoint the single arbitrator.

The City of Mississauga (Transit Department) v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local #1572, 1984 CanLII 969

Peter J. Thorup

27 cases1981–2014

M. Zigler

17 cases1980–2013

Carmen McClelland

N. B. Satterfield

I. M. Stamp

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 14, 1984

Related employer declaration denied where double-breasted operation did not erode union's existing bargaining rights.

The applicant union sought a declaration that there was a sale of a business between the respondents under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, and a declaration under section 1(4) that they constitute one employer.

The respondents, a unionized general contractor and a non-unionized holding company, admitted to common control but denied carrying on related activities.

The Board found that while the entities carried on related activities under common control, there was no evidence of an actual erosion of the union's bargaining rights or a scheme to defeat them.

The application was dismissed, with the Board declining to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059 v. The John Hayman & Sons Company Limited Ontario and King Limited, 1984 CanLII 972

Saul Marmurek

Robin B. Cumine

23 cases1981–2015

R. A. Furness

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 27, 1984

Employers' organization granted accreditation as bargaining agent for residential sector construction employers.

The applicant, an employers' organization, applied for accreditation as the bargaining agent for certain employers in the residential sector of the construction industry who have a bargaining relationship with the respondent union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that it had jurisdiction, that the applicant was a properly constituted employers' organization, and that it represented a majority of the employers who employed a majority of the employees in the appropriate unit.

The Board granted the application and issued a Certificate of Accreditation.

Interior Systems Contractors Association of Ontario v. Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 1984 CanLII 912

Kevin M. Burkett

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 24, 1984

Application for certification dismissed without imposing a bar on subsequent applications.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification.

The respondent employer requested that the application be dismissed and a one-year bar be imposed on subsequent applications, citing two previous unsuccessful applications.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board noted that the first application involved a small maintenance unit, while the current and immediately preceding applications involved a much larger all-employee unit.

The Board found that the applications did not pertain to the same employee group to a degree that would cause sufficient unrest to warrant a bar.

The Board dismissed the application but declined to impose a bar on future applications.

Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers v. The Sisters of St. Joseph of the Diocese of London in Ontario Operating St. Joseph's Hospital at Sarnia, Ontario, 1984 CanLII 919

Ian C. Springate

OLRB0 cases1983–1989

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 26, 1984

Arrest warrants for witnesses denied because conduct money was provided by cheque rather than cash.

The applicant union requested that the Board issue arrest warrants for four individuals who failed to attend a hearing after being served with a summons to witness.

The Board found that the individuals were provided with cheques for their conduct money rather than cash.

Noting the practical difficulties associated with cashing cheques, the Board held that a witness is entitled to actual receipt of conduct money in cash prior to being required to attend.

The Board declined to issue the arrest warrants.

The Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada Local 1 v. The Masonry Contractors Association of Toronto Inc. and Acadian Bricklayers Ltd., 1984 CanLII 924

F. J. W. Bickford

16 cases1981–1994

R. O. MacDowell

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 28, 1984

Community co-ordinator/case managers do not exercise managerial functions and are included in the nurses' bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of nurses.

The respondent employer objected to the inclusion of community co-ordinator/case managers, arguing they exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act or, alternatively, were not employed in a nursing capacity.

The Board found that the co-ordinators did not exercise managerial functions, as they had no role in personnel matters, budgeting, or directing other employees.

The Board also found they were employed in a nursing capacity, as they were registered nurses who used their professional skills and judgment in their roles.

A final certificate was issued including the co-ordinators in the bargaining unit.

Ontario Nurses' Association v. Victorian Order of Nurses, Lakehead Branch, 1984 CanLII 1049

A. P Tarasuk

17 cases1984–2000

Richard M. Brown

OLRB0 cases1983–1984

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 21, 1984

Employer violated Labour Relations Act by threatening to discipline union president over internal union affairs.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated sections 64 and 66(c) of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer's executive director threatened to discipline the local union president if he did not attend a meeting to discuss a conversation the president had with a fellow employee regarding internal union affairs and a potential breach of confidentiality.

The Board held that the employer's use of disciplinary threats to compel a union official to divulge information about the discharge of his union responsibilities constituted unlawful interference with the administration of the trade union.

A declaration of violation was issued.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton, 1984 CanLII 1068

R. O. MacDowell

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 8, 1984

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The complainant filed a second complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act alleging harassment by her foreman.

The complaint did not specify any sections of the Act that were violated, nor did it contain a concise statement of the acts complained of.

The Board found that the complaint did not make out a prima facie case for a breach of the Act and dismissed it without a hearing pursuant to section 71 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

Ladelle Hiles v. Carman Dinanno, 1984 CanLII 1069

Stewart D. Saxe

11 cases1982–1999

Brian Shell

Not Practising Law66 cases1981–2021

Owen V. Gray

OLRB0 cases1983–1992

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 27, 1984

Motion to dismiss unfair labour practice complaint for delay denied; no substantial prejudice to respondent found.

The complainant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint 15 months after the termination of an employee, alleging the discharge was motivated by anti-union animus.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the complaint should be dismissed due to extreme delay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed its jurisprudence on delay and the equitable doctrine of laches.

While finding the delay of 11 months unreasonable, the Board concluded that the respondent suffered no substantial prejudice or adverse reliance that would make it unfair to proceed.

The respondent's motion to dismiss was denied, though the Board noted the delay could affect the ultimate remedy and the assessment of the complaint's merits.

United Steelworkers of America v. John T. Hepburn, Limited, 1984 CanLII 953

A. Michael Stein

4 cases1984–2020

N. B. Satterfield

I. M. Stamp

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 16, 1984

Attendants providing care to tenants in non-profit housing are employees of the corporation, not excluded domestics.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of attendants employed by Nucleus Housing Inc., a non-profit corporation providing personal attendant care to quadriplegic tenants.

The respondent argued the attendants were domestics employed in private homes by the individual tenants, and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act under section 2(a).

The Board found that Nucleus, not the tenants, controlled the elements characteristic of an employer-employee relationship.

The Board concluded the attendants were employees of Nucleus and granted the application for certification.

Service Employees Union, Local 204 v. Nucleus Housing Inc., 1984 CanLII 955

J. Watson

5 cases1980–2015

C. F. Humphrey

4 cases1982–1986

N. B. Satterfield

I. M. Stamp

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 16, 1984

Union certification application dismissed as proposed dispatcher-only bargaining unit found inappropriate.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit comprised solely of the respondent's full-time dispatchers.

The respondent employer argued that dispatchers exercised managerial functions and that a dispatcher-only unit was inappropriate.

The Board found that dispatchers shared a greater community of interest with office and sales staff than with tow truck operators, and that carving out a dispatcher-only unit would lead to undue fragmentation.

The Board concluded the proposed unit was not appropriate for collective bargaining and dismissed the application.

Teamsters Local Union No. 879 v. Hamilton Automobile Club, 1984 CanLII 951

Tom Connolly

6 cases1982–2021

Steven Bellissimo

In Private Practice19 cases1984–2021

Henry Hellwinkel

Gilbert Scott

David Strang

16 cases1983–2000

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

Dario Disante

R. A. Furness

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 11, 1984

Certification application dismissed as untimely due to a valid pre-existing collective agreement covering the employees.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of carpenters employed by the respondent.

The respondent and the intervener union argued the application was untimely because a valid collective agreement already existed between them covering the employees.

The Board examined the intervener's membership evidence for the employees at the time the agreement was signed.

Although one employee was in arrears on dues and suspended from some privileges, the Board found he remained a member for the purpose of establishing representation entitlement.

Finding that the intervener represented a majority of the employees when the agreement was entered into, the Board held the collective agreement was valid and acted as a bar to the certification application.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union 446 v. Wardet Limited, 1984 CanLII 965

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

R. D. Perkins

5 cases1980–1985

M. Sullivan

3 cases1980–1984

Mel Perkins

G. Gerber

R. A. Furness

J. A. Ronson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 3, 1984

Grievance dismissed; project owner, not the respondent contractor, was the true employer of the workers.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by failing to employ union members for scaling work and by subcontracting the work to non-union employees.

The work was actually performed by laid-off employees of the project owner (LOC) at the owner's insistence, to satisfy its own union.

Applying the seven-fold criteria for determining an employer-employee relationship, the Board found that LOC, not the respondent, exercised direction and control and was the true employer of the individuals performing the work.

As the respondent did not employ the workers or subcontract the work, the grievance was dismissed.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 247 v. Plibrico (Canada) Limited, 1984 CanLII 957

R. M. Parry

16 cases1980–1993

M. G. Mitchnick

I. M. Stamp

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 19, 1983

Production Control Co-ordinator found to exercise managerial functions and excluded from the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether the newly created Production Control Co-ordinator position, held by Margaret Campbell, was an 'employee' for the purposes of the Act.

The respondent company argued the position was managerial and confidential.

The Board applied the 'effective recommendation' test and found that Ms. Campbell exercised independent judgment that consistently triggered immediate management responses, including discipline and staff cutbacks.

Consequently, the Board concluded she exercised managerial functions and was not an 'employee' under the Act.

United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) and its Local 513 v. Simmons Limited (Toronto Division), 1983 CanLII 793

N. B. Satterfield

I. M. Stamp

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 9, 1983

Certification application dismissed because union membership evidence was obtained through threats of job loss.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent the respondent's employees.

Interveners alleged that the membership evidence was obtained by intimidation, coercion, fraud, and misrepresentation.

The Board found that a business representative of the applicant threatened employees with loss of employment if they did not join the union.

As a result, the Board gave no weight to the membership evidence and dismissed the application.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. T and F Construction Equipment Rental Limited, 1983 CanLII 796

M. A. Church

9 cases1981–1990

Hugh C. MacLachlan

1 case1983–1983

D. L. Brisbin

8 cases1980–1987

R. A. Furness

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine