C. A. Ballentine

B. Sheehan

5 cases1983–2000

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

Ian C. Springate

OLRB0 cases1983–1989

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 7, 1983

Preliminary motion to dismiss duty of fair representation complaint for delay denied.

The complainant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union regarding its failure to assist her after she was terminated.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the complainant was incapable of returning to work, the complaint did not make out a prima facie case, and there was excessive delay in filing.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, finding that the factual disputes required a hearing and that the delay, while significant, did not cause real prejudice to the respondents.

The Board noted that any remedy could be adjusted to account for the delay.

J. L. Livitski v. Service Employees' Union, Local 268, 1983 CanLII 858

E. Rovet

9 cases1980–1988

Owen V. Gray

OLRB0 cases1983–1992

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 2, 1983

Representation vote ordered in decertification application; petition found voluntary despite past employer interference.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the petition was involuntary, relying on a previous Board decision involving the same employer where a different petition was found to be tainted by employer payment of legal fees.

The Board found no evidence connecting the current petition to the previous lawyer or any employer interference.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

Ken Price v. Shopmen's Local Union No. 834, 1983 CanLII 851

M. Mitchell

4 cases1981–2024

D. Wray

22 cases1980–2023

D. McKee

3 cases1983–1992

C. De Toni

6 cases1982–1989

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

H.J.F. Ade

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 1, 1983

Certification application dismissed where union lost representation vote, despite competing union's withdrawal and allegations of collusion.

Two unions, Local 1190 and Local 183, filed competing applications for certification regarding the respondent employer.

A representation vote was held, which Local 1190 won.

Subsequently, Local 1190 withdrew its application and membership evidence.

Local 183 argued it should be certified despite losing the vote, alleging improper collusive behaviour between the employer and Local 1190.

The Board dismissed Local 183's application, noting it did not win the representation vote and the Board had not heard all evidence regarding the allegations of improper conduct.

The Board also declined to impose the usual six-month bar on the unsuccessful unions due to the significant time that had elapsed since the vote.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America - Local 1190 v. Two Star Construction Ltd., 1983 CanLII 869

R. C. Filion

29 cases1980–1996

Jim Thomson

4 cases1982–1991

David Strang

16 cases1983–2000

C. McClelland

3 cases1983–2024

Bruce Binning

40 cases1981–1998

M. G. Mitchnick

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 17, 1983

Employer's closure of construction site on Fridays to force union concessions constituted an unlawful lockout.

The complainant trade union alleged that the respondent employer engaged in an unlawful lockout and violated several provisions of the Labour Relations Act by attempting to force employees to work under terms less favourable than their provincial collective agreement.

Facing cost overruns and pressure from the owner, the employer sought to implement a four-day work week with extended hours at straight time, contrary to the collective agreements of several trades.

When the union refused, the employer closed the site on Fridays, effectively reducing the employees' hours.

The Board found that the employer's actions constituted an unlawful lockout designed to compel the union to agree to concessions.

The Board also found that the employer violated section 146(2) of the Act by attempting to negotiate a separate local arrangement inconsistent with the provincial agreement.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council and Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 597 v. C. E. Lummus Canada Ltd., 1983 CanLII 948

Susan Zimmerman

2 cases1983–2007

Lynn H. Hamden

Gordon Searson

Richard M. Brown

OLRB0 cases1983–1984

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 13, 1983

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; discrimination claims deferred to arbitration and no employer interference found.

The complainant, a business representative for a union local, alleged that his employer (the local) violated sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act by discharging him for his union activities and interfering with his choice of representative.

The Board deferred the section 66 discrimination and discharge allegations to arbitration, noting that an arbitrator had already dismissed the complainant's grievances on these issues.

Regarding the section 64 allegation, the Board found that the employer's inquiries into the authority of the complainant's chosen representative, who worked for a different union, did not constitute improper interference.

The complaint was dismissed.

Tom Norton and the Professional and Clerical Workers of Canada v. The Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers and its Local 111 and Robert Whissell, 1983 CanLII 937

R. J. Goodman

R. C. Filion

29 cases1980–1996

Michael Gargaro

K. Mallette

2 cases1983–1985

Janet Trim

D. Jane Forbes-Roberts

14 cases1981–1986

Chris G. Paliare

192 cases1980–2026

C. De Toni

6 cases1982–1989

B. S. Fishbein

2 cases1983–1993

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 6, 1983

Complaint dismissed; concrete forming agreement was explicitly excluded from provincial bargaining designation.

The complainant union alleged that the respondents violated section 146 of the Labour Relations Act by entering into an agreement or arrangement for concrete forming work in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector that was contrary to the provincial collective agreement.

The respondent union brought a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing that its relationship with the employer association was specifically exempted from the employee bargaining agency designation by the Minister of Labour under section 139 of the Act.

The Board agreed, finding that the exclusion in the designation meant the employees were not represented by affiliated bargaining agents for the purpose of section 146(2).

The complaint was dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie violation of the Act.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 v. Verdi Forming Limited, 1983 CanLII 954

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

John P. Sanderson, Q.C.

11 cases1980–1985

Gail White

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 30, 1983

Municipality found to be an employer in the construction industry; union certification granted for bricklayers.

The applicant union sought certification for two bricklayers employed by the respondent municipality.

The respondent argued it was not an employer in the construction industry and that the employees were maintenance workers covered by an existing collective agreement.

The Board found that the employees spent the majority of their time performing construction work, not maintenance.

The Board also held that the municipality, by undertaking construction work on its own behalf, operated a business in the construction industry.

The existing collective agreement was found not to cover construction work.

Certification was granted.

The Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen — Local #12 v. City of Kitchener, 1983 CanLII 961

W J. Olsen

In Private Practice17 cases1980–1998

Stephen Krashinsky

M. D. Contini

5 cases1981–2000

Lewis Gottheil

30 cases1982–2016

James Nyman

10 cases1983–2012

J. Wilson

Ian C. Springate

OLRB0 cases1983–1989

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 28, 1983

Board lacks jurisdiction over work assignment complaint due to collective agreement tribunal requirement; related employer declaration granted.

The complainant union filed a work assignment complaint regarding electrical installation work.

The respondent employer and intervening unions challenged the Board's jurisdiction under section 91(14) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing the collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board.

The complainant argued the respondent was not bound by the provincial agreement.

The respondent requested a related employer declaration under section 1(4) to be declared a single employer with its unionized subsidiary.

The Board found the preconditions for section 1(4) were met and exercised its discretion to make the declaration, binding the respondent to the provincial agreement.

Consequently, the Board held it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint under section 91(14) and dismissed it.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 773 v. Jervis B. Webb Company of Canada, Ltd., 1983 CanLII 981

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 23, 1983

Union certified for construction truck drivers; Board declined employer's request for sectoral and specific exclusions.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of truck drivers employed by the respondent.

The initial application did not exclude the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, but was later amended by the applicant to exclude it.

The respondent proposed a bargaining unit restricted to the road construction sector and sought exclusions for camp staff, engineering staff, summer students, and employees covered by a subsisting agreement.

The Board declined to make sectoral determinations or grant the respondent's requested exclusions, noting its practice of avoiding sectoral determinations in construction industry certification proceedings.

Finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board issued a certificate to the applicant without a hearing.

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 91 v. Armbro Materials & Construction Ltd., 1983 CanLII 957

Naomi Duguid

17 cases1981–1986

K. W. Kort

12 cases1981–1999

Richard M. Brown

OLRB0 cases1983–1984

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 15, 1983

Transfer of nursing home licence, patients, and land constitutes a sale of a business.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent nursing home was a successor employer following the transfer of a nursing home licence, patients, and land from a predecessor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the transaction constituted a sale of a business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, as the essential elements of the business, including the licence and the residents, were transferred to the successor.

Service Employees' Union, Local 183 v. Riverview Manor, 1983 CanLII 979

W. R. Herridge Q. C.

6 cases1980–1991

Robert Perkins

R. DeGroot

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

George Longo

2 cases1981–1983

F Heerena

D. Miller

A. Ferens

2 cases1983–1996

Richard M. Brown

OLRB0 cases1983–1984

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 29, 1983

Voluntary recognition agreement expanding bargaining unit struck down as it lacked majority support of new employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at a newly opened nursing home in Etobicoke.

The intervener union claimed it already represented the employees based on a voluntary recognition agreement with the employer.

The Board held that under section 60(1) of the Labour Relations Act, a voluntary recognition agreement that expands an existing bargaining unit to include new employees is subject to challenge if entered into before the employees are hired or aware of the union representation.

Since the intervener did not demonstrate majority support among the new employees at the time they were hired, the Board declared the intervener was not entitled to represent them, and the applicant's certification application was timely.

Service Employees Union, Local 204 v. Bestview Holdings Limited, 1983 CanLII 755

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 12, 1983

Union breached settlement agreement by failing to support equal pay claim and promptly process grievance.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union failed to comply with the terms of a written settlement resolving earlier complaints under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the union breached the settlement by failing to actively support the Employment Standards Officer's position before a Referee regarding an equal pay claim, and by failing to promptly process a member's grievance and ensure the membership decided whether to arbitrate it.

The Board issued a declaration of non-compliance and ordered the union to hold a special membership meeting to vote on arbitrating the grievance.

Terry Davey v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 16, 1983 CanLII 842

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

Israel Palter

2 cases1983–1983

Howard Levitt

9 cases1981–2012

Bmam Herlich

A. D. G. Purdy

6 cases1981–1996

Michel G. Picher

OLRB0 cases1983–1995

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 8, 1983

Employer committed unfair labour practices by paying non-union transferees higher wages to undermine union before decertification vote.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer engaged in a pattern of anti-union conduct, including contracting out bargaining unit work and transferring non-union employees to the unionized plant at higher wage rates during the period leading up to a representation vote on the termination of bargaining rights.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer's actions, which also included tabling a discriminatory wage offer, violated the Labour Relations Act by undermining the union and interfering with the employees' ability to vote freely.

The Board ordered the employer to cease contracting out, stop discriminatory transfers, table a non-discriminatory wage offer, and directed that a new representation vote be held after three months.

MacKay v. United Steelworkers of America, 1983 CanLII 825

J. Wilson

Corinne F. Murray

OLRB0 cases1982–1985

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 8, 1983

Union merger approved and successor rights granted; representation vote denied as internal procedures were properly followed.

The applicant union applied under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor trade union, the Jaeger Employees' Union.

An employee objected, arguing he misunderstood the effect of a motion to amend the union's constitution, and the employer requested a representation vote.

The Board found that the predecessor union's constitutional procedures for merger were properly followed and that there was no evidence of widespread misunderstanding or interference with the members' true wishes.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted the requested declaration.

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Jaeger Machine Company of Canada Ltd., 1983 CanLII 827

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

D. E. Franks

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 30, 1983

Board affirms assignment of small construction equipment repair to respondent union based on area practice.

The complainant union filed a complaint concerning a work assignment at a nuclear generating station, claiming the maintenance and repair of small construction equipment should be assigned to its members rather than the respondent union.

The Board found that the respondent union had been performing the work for a year prior to a mark-up meeting where the work was inadvertently assigned to the complainant.

Applying the criteria of area practice and the policy of not disturbing long-standing assignments, the Board affirmed the assignment of the work to the respondent union.

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Ontario Hydro, 1983 CanLII 879

Michael A. Church

51 cases1982–2026

F.A.M. Tremaiyne

Brian P Smenk

Kevin M. Burkett

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

J. Wilson

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 2, 1983

Board declares division of amalgamated corporation as successor employer to preserve, not extend, union bargaining rights.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 63 or section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Banister Continental Ltd. was a successor or single employer following its amalgamation with Pitts Engineering Construction Limited.

The union argued this was necessary to protect its bargaining rights from future non-union spin-offs.

The respondents argued that declaring the parent company the successor would improperly expand the union's bargaining rights to other divisions.

The Board held that the purpose of sections 1(4) and 63 is to preserve, not extend, bargaining rights.

The Board declared that Pitts Engineering Construction, a division of Banister Continental Ltd., is the successor employer.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 446 v. Pitts Engineering Construction, 1983 CanLII 881

Robert A. MacDermid

5 cases1980–1983

Gene 0 Driscoll

Douglas J. Wrap

C. A. Cumiskey

4 cases1981–1983

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

C. G. Bourne

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 1, 1983

Employer committed unfair labour practice by terminating agency workers who were found to be its employees.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by terminating or reducing the hours of several temporary workers supplied by employment agencies.

This action was allegedly taken in response to a grievance filed by the union claiming these workers were employees covered by the collective agreement.

The Board found that the agency workers were employees of the employer for the purposes of the Act, given the high degree of control exercised over them.

The Board further held that the employer's actions in reducing their hours and terminating them were motivated by anti-union animus and a desire to penalize them for the grievance, thereby violating sections 64, 66, and 80(1) of the Act.

The employer was ordered to reinstate the workers with compensation.

Teamsters, Local 419 v. K Mart Canada Limited, 1983 CanLII 900

S. C. Bernardo

42 cases1980–2001

P. Murphy

Michael P. ODea

L. Richmond

9 cases1980–2001

Josephine Dikken

J. McKinnon

2 cases1983–2017

Bob Nicli

N. B. Satterfield

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 26, 1983

Board deferred ruling on whether laid-off employees had status to intervene in a certification application.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry and requested a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act for two respondents.

Several individuals, who were laid off from one of the respondents at the time of the application, filed petitions objecting to the application.

The applicant challenged their status to intervene, arguing they were not employees in the bargaining unit on the application date.

The Board deferred its decision on their status until it could hear all evidence regarding the related employer and build-up issues, permitting the objectors to participate in the proceedings in the interim.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059 v. Kent County Contractors, 1983 CanLII 737

Robin B. Cumine

23 cases1981–2015

Maurice A. Green

34 cases1980–2009

Mary Cornish

53 cases1981–2022

N. B. Satterfield

M. Eayers

OLRB0 cases1983–1983

C. A. Ballentine