D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 5, 1987

Employer ordered to pay $124,176.96 for breaching union security clause by hiring non-union workers.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the collective agreement by employing non-union members to perform catalyst discharging and loading work.

The respondent failed to appear at the hearing, and a late request for an adjournment was denied due to the need for expedition in construction grievances.

The Board found the respondent violated the union security clause and ordered it to pay $124,176.96 in compensation to the union in trust for the lost wages and benefits.

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Lodge 128 v. Catalyst Technology (Canada) Ltd., 1987 CanLII 3283

Richard Blair

131 cases1987–2020

M. E. Geiger

17 cases1984–2001

J James Nyman

38 cases1981–2016

J. David Watson

19 cases1986–2020

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

Patricia Hughes

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 29, 1987

Board refuses to dismiss unfair labour practice complaint for delay and applies reverse onus provision.

The complainant alleged that his former employer and union conspired to dismiss him, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint should be dismissed due to delay and res judicata.

The majority of the Board refused to dismiss the complaint on the basis of delay, finding that the complainant only had suspicions until the alleged conspiracy was made public, and that res judicata did not apply.

The Board unanimously ruled that the reverse onus provision in subsection 89(5) applied, as the complaint involved allegations of anti-union animus affecting employment.

The Board ordered the employer to proceed first with its evidence.

Ghiansaroop Persaud v. Consumers Distributing Company Limited, Teamsters Local Union 419 and Sean Floyd, 1987 CanLII 3280

Theodore Crljenica

Licence Surrendered - Administrative Surrender of Licence7 cases1987–1996

N. L. Jesin

70 cases1987–2001

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

Patricia Hughes

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 29, 1987

Certification application dismissed as only one employee was performing bargaining unit work on the application date.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The central issue was whether an employee was performing carpentry work on the date of the application.

Applying the Gilvesy test, the Board found that while the employee was employed and at work on the application date, he spent the majority of his time chipping concrete columns rather than performing carpentry work.

As this left only one employee in the proposed bargaining unit, the application for certification was dismissed pursuant to subsection 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local #494 v. 608322 Ontario Inc. Delco Contractors, 1987 CanLII 3288

Walter Thornton

47 cases1986–2001

V. Solomatenko

OLRB0 cases1986–1987

G. 0. Shamanski

OLRB0 cases1986–1995

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 27, 1987

Union certified; employee petition opposing certification rejected due to unexplained gap in physical custody.

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union applied for certification to represent employees of Canada Dry Bottling Company Ltd. in Peterborough.

The union filed sufficient membership evidence for automatic certification, but a group of employees filed a petition opposing the application.

The Board held a hearing to determine the voluntariness of the petition.

Due to a material gap in the evidence regarding the physical custody of the petition for a nine-hour period, the Board could not be satisfied that the petition was free from management influence.

The Board gave the petition no weight and granted the union's application for certification.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Canada Dry Bottling Company Ltd., 1987 CanLII 3029

Brian P. Smeenk

34 cases1982–2012

V. Solomatenko

OLRB0 cases1986–1987

G. 0. Shamanski

OLRB0 cases1986–1995

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 20, 1987

Board appoints officer to inquire into disputed bargaining unit exclusions and adjourns to hear misconduct allegations.

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

The parties partially agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed the exclusion of 'working foremen' as managerial personnel and the inclusion of a specific employee based on hours worked.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into these disputed individuals.

The Board declined the applicant's request for a clarity note restricting the technical staff exclusion to specific classifications.

The Board found sufficient overlap between union membership cards and an employee petition opposing the union to make the petition relevant, necessitating a hearing on its voluntariness.

The matter was adjourned to hear evidence on the petition's voluntariness and newly raised allegations of misconduct by both parties.

National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Can-Eng Metal Treating Ltd., 1987 CanLII 3031

Robert W. Little

15 cases1987–2017

Robert J. Atkinson

18 cases1986–2014

M. Powers

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

J. Nugent

A. Pinlatt

Allen E. Grotke

Robert J. Herman

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

J. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1987

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 6, 1987

Application to terminate union bargaining rights dismissed as supporting petition was not voluntary.

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

The Board examined the voluntariness of the petition signed by employees in support of the application.

The Board found that the applicant had misrepresented to employees that he had a confidential source indicating that previous benefits would be reinstated if the union was decertified, leading employees to perceive a link with management.

Consequently, the Board concluded the petition was not voluntary and dismissed the application.

A dissenting board member would have ordered a representation vote.

Bernard John Moore v. International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 1975, 1987 CanLII 3038

Theo Nederloff

Michael Horan

38 cases1980–2001

Michael Failes

8 cases1987–2010

Jim O'Donnell

6 cases1982–1997

J. Fennema

Helen Donaldson

Eric DelJunco

66 cases1984–2019

Darrell Hunt

Robert I. Herman

OLRB0 cases1987–1987

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 23, 1987

Union certified automatically; 55.3 percent support satisfies statutory requirement of 'more than 55 percent'.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description.

The union demonstrated membership support of 55.3 percent.

Employee objectors argued that 'more than 55 percent' under section 7(2) of the Labour Relations Act required at least 56 percent, and alternatively requested a representation vote due to alleged intimidation from recent parking lot vandalism.

The Board held that any fraction over 55 percent is sufficient for automatic certification.

The Board declined to order a representation vote, finding the vandalism allegations too remote to establish a chilling effect.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

Teamsters Local Union No. 879 v. All Type Metal Stamping Limited, 1987 CanLII 3023

Ian C. Springate

OLRB0 cases1983–1989

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 30, 1987

Employer breached OHSA by sending worker home after work refusal instead of assigning alternative work.

The complainant, a worker at an automotive parts manufacturer, refused to work on a production line due to concerns about static shocks.

The employer sent her home without assigning alternative work and subsequently suspended her for two days for refusing to punch out and for her conduct during the incident.

The worker filed a complaint alleging reprisals under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the worker acted inappropriately by refusing to explain her safety concerns or meet with a health and safety representative, the employer breached the Act by failing to assign alternative work.

The Board also reduced the two-day suspension to a one-day suspension, finding the original penalty unduly severe.

Marie V. Roy v. North American Plastics Company Limited, 1987 CanLII 3014

Steven Barrett

15 cases1984–2017

Sharon Scott

3 cases1986–1988

Clare Fitzgerald

3 cases1986–1988

Brian Burkett

9 cases1980–1995

W. G. Donnelly

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

R. Herman

OLRB0 cases1986–1989

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 7, 1987

Board determines managerial exclusions for Assistant Branch Managers and trainees in union certification application.

In an application for certification involving seven branch offices of National Trust, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined whether certain employees exercised managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board examined the duties of seven Assistant Branch Managers/Administration Officers, finding that four exercised managerial functions and were excluded from the bargaining unit, while three did not and were included.

The Board also determined that Administration Officer Trainees did not exercise managerial functions but were excluded from the bargaining unit on community of interest grounds.

Finally, the Board ruled that the original panel was not seized with the remaining issues in the proceeding.

Union of Bank Employees (Ontario) Local 2104 v. National Trust, 1987 CanLII 2990

Michael J. Glover

Lorenzo Girones

5 cases1986–2023

R. J. Gallivan

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

Ken Petryshen

OLRB0 cases1986–2026

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 30, 1986

Board defines bargaining unit and orders representation vote in construction industry certification application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer requested a revision of the geographic boundaries of Board area #19, which the Board declined to do without broader consultation.

The Board also resolved several disputes regarding the composition of the bargaining unit, finding that three individuals exercised managerial functions and were excluded, while determining the status of others as labourers or operators.

As the union's membership evidence demonstrated support of not less than forty-five per cent but not enough for automatic certification, the Board ordered a representation vote.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 491 v. Klimack Construction Limited, 1986 CanLII 1378

Stuart Ducoffe

In Private Practice5 cases1986–2014

Robert J. Reynolds

In Private Practice86 cases1986–2026

Gerald Charney

Cindy Wilkey

17 cases1986–2012

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

Ken Petryshen

OLRB0 cases1986–2026

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 30, 1986

Decertification petition found voluntary despite union's allegations of employer interference during prior lock-out.

The applicant employee filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued that the petition was not voluntary due to the employer's conduct during a recent lock-out, the hiring of replacement workers, and the payment of a larger Christmas bonus to the applicant.

The Board found that the employer's actions did not taint the petition, as they were not directly related to its origination or circulation, and the petition was circulated eight months after the lock-out ended.

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

Craig Scurr v. Service Employees Union, Local 183, 1986 CanLII 1392

Patricia Hughes

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 16, 1986

D. A. MacDonald

OLRB0 cases1982–1994

Certification application dismissed due to applicant's failure to attend scheduled Officer's meeting.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and requested a pre-hearing vote.

After a rescheduled meeting with a Labour Relations Officer, the applicant failed to attend.

Despite the applicant's counsel submitting that the failure was due to inadvertent coincidences, the Board noted that the notice of meeting explicitly stated that failure to attend would result in rejection of the application.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Great Lakes Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union v. S. Catrini Fisheries Inc., 1986 CanLII 1385

Patricia Hughes

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 4, 1986

D. A. MacDonald

OLRB0 cases1982–1994

Pre-hearing representation vote directed in certification application despite blank Form 9; ballot box sealed.

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

The parties disagreed on the description and scope of the bargaining unit.

The Board determined the voting constituency based on the applicant's proposed unit.

Despite the applicant filing a blank Form 9 declaration, the Board found sufficient appearance of membership support to direct a pre-hearing vote.

The Board ordered the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the Form 9 issue and other disputes.

Great Lakes Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union v. F. Causarano Fishery Limited, 1986 CanLII 1371

W. J. Hayter

14 cases1981–2000

M. Teodorescu

B.A. B. Simpson

Patricia Hughes

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 19, 1986

Government-subsidized workers in make-work programs found to be employees of the respondent for certification purposes.

The applicant union sought certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The parties disagreed on the status of six individuals who were fully subsidized by government make-work programs (the Futures Program and a municipal welfare program).

The respondent argued these individuals were not its employees because they were funded and partially controlled by external agencies.

Applying the York Condominium criteria, the Board found that the respondent exercised day-to-day control, assigned work, and benefited from their labour.

The Board concluded that the six individuals were employees of the respondent for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act and included them in the bargaining unit.

Canadian Union of Restaurant and Related Employees v. Telkom Corporation, 1986 CanLII 1514

Morris Manning

63 cases1980–2021

Bernard Fishbein

79 cases1982–2011

Harry Freedman

OLRB0 cases1984–2001

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

D. A. Patterson