D. L. Gee

J. Raso

19 cases1992–2001

Henry Dinsdale

9 cases1988–2013

W. N. Fraser

OLRB0 cases1988–2000

G. McMenemny

OLRB0 cases1997–1997

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 2, 1997

Jurisdictional dispute over wood blocking installation in built-up roofing system resolved in favour of Sheet Metal Workers.

The applicant union filed jurisdictional dispute applications concerning the assignment of handling and installation of wood blocking as part of a built-up roofing system at a Toyota plant.

The work had been assigned to the applicant's members by the responding employers, but the responding union claimed the work should have been assigned to its members.

Following a consultation, the Board upheld the assignment to the applicant's members.

The Board found that employer practice, economy and efficiency, and decisions of record favoured the applicant, while area practice was neutral or favoured the applicant.

Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 562 v. Semple-Gooder Roofing Limited, 1997 CanLII 15548

Tom Taylor

1 case1997–1997

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Mike Coleman

1 case1997–1997

Larry Eller

1 case1997–1997

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

Bruce Binning

40 cases1981–1998

W. N. Fraser

OLRB0 cases1988–2000

G. McMenemy

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 31, 1997

Board entertained jurisdictional dispute, finding local union not bound by unagreed alternative dispute resolution plan.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute concerning the operation of cranes and forklifts at a construction site.

The responding parties objected to the Board entertaining the application, arguing that the dispute had already been decided by an arbitrator under the Canadian Plan for the Settlement of Jurisdictional Disputes in the Construction Industry.

The Board held that the applicant local union was not stipulated to the Plan, either in its own right or through its parent international union, and was not a privy of the international union.

Consequently, the applicant was not bound by the Plan's arbitration decision.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the application and directed that the matter be scheduled for consultation.

International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 721 v. Ryco Alberici, 1997 CanLII 15523

N. L. Jesin

Bruce Binning

40 cases1981–1998

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 6, 1996

Board finds provincial designation order does not create bargaining rights for separate trades.

The applicants referred a grievance to arbitration and applied for related employer and sale of business declarations.

As a preliminary issue, the Board determined the scope of the applicants' bargaining rights.

The applicants argued that by virtue of being bound to the Provincial Bricklayers Agreement, the responding parties were also bound to the Provincial Marble, Tile and Terrazzo Agreement due to the employee bargaining agency designation, or alternatively, that the sub-contracting clause required them to sub-contract tile and terrazzo work to union contractors.

The Board dismissed both arguments, finding that the designation order could not create bargaining rights and that the sub-contracting clause only restricted the sub-contracting of work covered by the Provincial Bricklayers Agreement.

Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen v. Dineen Construction Limited, 1996 CanLII 11123

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Robert Anagnostopottlos

1 case1996–1996

David C. Daniels

9 cases1991–2001

Dale F. Fitzpatrick

2 cases1996–2002

O. R. McGuire

OLRB0 cases1994–1997

G. McMenemy

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 16, 1996

Union certified without a vote after employer unlawfully terminated a union supporter and circulated anti-union questionnaires.

The union applied for certification and alleged unfair labour practices against the employer, including the termination of a union supporter and the circulation of an anti-union questionnaire by a managerial employee.

The Board found that the termination was motivated by anti-union animus and that the questionnaire constituted unlawful interference.

Concluding that a representation vote would not reflect the true wishes of the employees due to the chilling effect of the employer's actions, the Board granted automatic certification under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and ordered the reinstatement of the terminated employee with compensation.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 804 v. Culliton Brothers Limited, 1996 CanLII 11122

Michael S. Ruddy

19 cases1983–2001

J. Raso

19 cases1992–2001

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 16, 1996

Employer violated Act by asking employees to sign anti-union declarations; new representation vote ordered.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by asking employees to sign declarations opposing the union.

The employer, the sole owner of the company, had individualized declarations prepared and asked employees to sign them two days before a representation vote.

The Board found this conduct violated section 76 of the Act and likely discouraged employees from voting, as only one employee cast a ballot.

However, the Board declined to grant automatic certification under section 11(1), finding the employer's conduct did not threaten job security or undermine confidence in the rule of law such that a second vote would not reflect true wishes.

The Board ordered a new representation vote and directed the employer to post notices and allow the union to address employees.

Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 47 v. Maverick Mechanical Contractors Limited, 1996 CanLII 11211

G. McMenemy

F. B. Reaume

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 13, 1996

Related employer declaration denied where new company did not perform work covered by the collective agreement.

The applicant unions sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against Con-Ex Inc. and the Dobben group of companies, as well as a declaration of joint liability for outstanding debts.

The Board found that while the entities carried on associated or related activities under common control, it declined to exercise its discretion to declare them one employer because Con-Ex was not performing work covered by the collective agreement.

However, the Board declared Dobben Construction Inc. and Marcon Contractors jointly liable for the prior debts of Dobben Group Inc.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 v. Dobben Group Inc., 1996 CanLII 11181

Richard Lyall

3 cases1993–2000

Pino Celsi

Suspended Administratively53 cases1980–2001

Joseph Liberman

Harold Piccininni

Ernesto Arduini

2 cases1986–1995

Carl Peterson

53 cases1984–2023

Carlo D'Ambrosio

A. Pinto

3 cases1995–2024

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

J. Redshaw

OLRB0 cases1986–1997

F. B. Reaume

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 11, 1995

Board approves agreed-upon bargaining unit for low-rise concrete forming employers in accreditation application.

The applicant employers' association applied for accreditation to represent employers engaged in low-rise concrete forming in the residential sector.

The applicant and the responding union agreed on the bargaining unit description.

Intervenor employer associations argued the unit should be broader, encompassing all employers bound by various residential sector collective agreements, to reflect contemporaneous bargaining practices.

The Board found that the proposed unit reflected the existing, stable bargaining structure and was viable for collective bargaining.

The Board determined the proposed unit was appropriate and directed notice to employers.

The Residential Low Rise Forming Contractors Association of Metropolitan Toronto and Vicinity v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, 1995 CanLII 10039

Scott Williams

13 cases1994–2016

Ros Rioux

Ron McFadden

Rick Currie

7 cases1995–2001

M. Patrick Moran

36 cases1982–2011

John Moszynski

71 cases1986–2017

Jim McKinnon

3 cases1993–1995

Don Nielson

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

Al Diggon

J. Redshaw

OLRB0 cases1986–1997

F. B. Reaume

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 6, 1995

Board confirms assignment of transmission tower digging and backfilling work to IBEW over Labourers.

The applicants sought an order confirming the assignment of hand digging and backfilling work at the base of transmission towers to members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1788.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059, claimed the work should have been assigned to its members.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board confirmed the assignment to the IBEW, finding that the digging and backfilling functions were not severable from the other functions performed by the IBEW crew.

Assigning the work to the Labourers would result in serious inefficiencies, as the digging and backfilling constituted only a minor portion of the overall work.

A dissenting board member would have required further written submissions to clarify the description of the work.

Electrical Power Systems Construction Association v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1788, 1995 CanLII 10030

Ron Carlton

3 cases1995–2000

Robert Leone

7 cases1995–2001

N. L. Jesin

John Moszynski

71 cases1986–2017

Bruce Binning

40 cases1981–1998

G. McMenemy

F. B. Reaume

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 2, 1995

Board upholds work assignment to Carpenters on international bridge project based on existing collective agreement.

The Labourers' union brought a jurisdictional dispute proceeding under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act, challenging PCL/McCarthy's assignment of construction work on the Canadian portion of the Blue Water Bridge to the Carpenters' union.

The Carpenters raised a preliminary objection that the project fell under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found it had constitutional jurisdiction, as the construction of the bridge was not integral to its future federal operation.

On the merits, the Board declined to disturb the work assignment, finding that the Carpenters had a valid collective agreement with the employer, whereas the Labourers did not, which outweighed area practice evidence favouring the Labourers.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1089 v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1256, 1995 CanLII 9943

R. Mitchell

J. Raso

19 cases1992–2001

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 19, 1995

Employee reaffirmations of support for an incumbent union do not nullify membership evidence in a pre-hearing vote.

In an application for certification, the applicant union (CLAC) sought to displace the incumbent union (Sheet Metal).

A pre-hearing representation vote was held.

As a preliminary issue, the incumbent union argued that reaffirmations of support signed by employees nullified their prior membership applications in the applicant union, reducing the applicant's support below the 35% threshold required for a pre-hearing vote.

The Board held that a withdrawal of support or reaffirmation of support for another union does not constitute a resignation or cancellation of membership in the applicant union.

Furthermore, the Board found that 'change of heart' documents have no place in the pre-hearing vote process under section 9 of the Labour Relations Act, as the vote itself allows employees to express their wishes.

The Board concluded the applicant had the requisite membership support.

Christian Labour Association of Canada, Construction Workers Local 52 v. Covertite Eastern Limited, 1995 CanLII 9973

L. Monteiro

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

Kate Erickson

J. MacKinnon

8 cases1986–1995

Devon Howard

Brett Christen

12 cases1991–2015

B. Quistgaard

3 cases1993–1995

R. M. Sloan

OLRB0 cases1986–2000

P. V. Grasso

OLRB0 cases1983–1997

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 6, 1995

Strike vote combining employees of multiple employers bound by association agreement failed to meet statutory requirements.

The applicant union filed complaints alleging the responding employers violated the Labour Relations Act by using replacement workers during a strike.

The employers objected that the union had not held a valid strike vote under subsection 73.1(2)2.

The union had conducted a single strike vote among employees of all employers bound by the terms of an unaccredited employers' association collective agreement.

The Board held that the voting constituency was improper because the employees did not all face the same prospect of a strike, as individual employers could withdraw from the association bargaining.

The applications were dismissed.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059 v. J. Franze Concrete Ltd., 1995 CanLII 9978

Steve Cork

2 cases1994–1995

Mark Rowlinson

21 cases1995–2013

Joseph Liberman

Suspended Administratively53 cases1980–2001

Fil Falbo

2 cases1995–1998

Doug Dunsmuir

2 cases1994–1995

Brian Shell

Not Practising Law66 cases1981–2021

Orval R. McGuire

OLRB0 cases1995–1997

H. Peacock

OLRB0 cases1987–2001

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 14, 1995

An employer cannot request a final offer vote after first agreement arbitration has been initiated.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether an employer can request a final offer vote under section 40 of the Labour Relations Act after first agreement arbitration has been initiated under section 41.

The union argued that because section 41(13) prohibits strikes or lock-outs once first agreement arbitration is initiated, the precondition for a final offer vote cannot be met.

The employer argued that the provisions could operate simultaneously.

The Board held that the opening words of section 40 establish a precondition that strike or lock-out activity must be available.

Since section 41(13) eliminates the possibility of a strike or lock-out, an employer cannot request a final offer vote after first agreement arbitration has been initiated.

United Steelworkers of America v. Royalguard Vinyl Co., A Division of Royplast Limited, 1995 CanLII 9959

John Moszynski

71 cases1986–2017

James G. Knight

12 cases1986–2015

G. Dimitriou

2 cases1995–2012

H. Kobryn

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

F. B. Reaume

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 1, 1995

Board declares three construction companies to be one 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 Georgian Construction, Georgian Group, Cresmark, and Krestmark constituted one employer.

The Board found that Georgian Construction, Georgian Group, and Cresmark carried on associated or related activities in the residential sector of the construction industry under common control or direction.

The Board exercised its discretion to issue a related employer declaration to prevent the erosion of the union's bargaining rights.

The application was dismissed as against Krestmark, which was not a construction company.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. The Georgian Construction Company Limited, 1995 CanLII 9962

R. Weiss

OLRB0 cases1995–1995

F. B. Reaume

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 30, 1995

Off-site shop fabrication of ductwork for ICI projects is covered by the ICI agreement.

The applicant union brought a grievance referral under section 126 of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that the fabrication of ductwork by DuraSystems in its off-site shop for installation on ICI projects was covered by the ICI agreement.

The respondents argued that off-site shop work did not fall within the definition of the construction industry.

The Board held that under section 119 of the Act, employees engaged entirely in off-site work are construction employees if they are commonly associated in bargaining with on-site employees.

Finding a long-standing practice in the sheet metal industry of associating shop fabricators with on-site installers in bargaining, the Board concluded that DuraSystems' shop employees were construction employees and their fabrication of ductwork for ICI sites was covered by the ICI agreement.

Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 30 v. Duffy Mechanical Contractors Limited, 1995 CanLII 9987

J James Nyman

38 cases1981–2016

Gary Kitchen

1 case1994–1994

R. W Pirrie

OLRB0 cases1985–1998

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 13, 1994

D. A. Patterson

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

Employers ordered to reinstate three employees after failing to file a response to unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding employers terminated three employees for their union activity.

The responding parties failed to file a response in accordance with the Board's Rules of Procedure and failed to comply with a prior interim reinstatement order.

The Board refused to extend the time for filing a response, deemed the facts in the application to be true, and found that the employers violated the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the immediate reinstatement of the three employees with full compensation.

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local No. 880 v. Trican Materials Ltd. and Dunhill Contracting Ltd., 1994 CanLII 9800

P. Straszynski

6 cases1994–2000

David Wright

188 cases1989–2025

W. A. Correll

OLRB0 cases1986–1995

P. Seville

OLRB0 cases1994–1994

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 30, 1994

Board grants certification for a plant-only bargaining unit, finding no serious labour relations problems.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the employer's manufacturing plant.

The employer argued that the appropriate unit should include employees at both its plant and its distribution yard, located 1.8 kilometres away, asserting that a plant-only unit would cause serious labour relations problems due to employee interchange and operational interdependence.

The Board found that the level of employee interchange was not significant or regular enough to cause serious labour relations problems if restricted.

The Board determined that the plant-only unit was appropriate and, finding that more than 55 percent of the employees in the unit were members of the union, ordered that a certificate issue.

IWA - Canada v. Kent Trusses Limited, 1994 CanLII 9905

Michael Carter

2 cases1994–2021

R. W Pirrie

OLRB0 cases1985–1998

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 28, 1994

D. A. Patterson

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

Interim relief partially granted; employer ordered to provide work equivalent to two shifts pending unfair labour practice complaint.

The union applied for interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking the reinstatement of 23 employees laid off shortly after an application for certification was filed.

The union alleged the layoffs were motivated by anti-union animus, while the employer claimed they were due to a seasonal shortage of work.

The Board found the union established an arguable case but balanced the harm by ordering the employer to provide work equivalent to two full shifts, rather than reinstating all 23 employees, as the employer failed to explain the sudden reduction from two planned shifts to one.

IWA Canada v. Earnway Industries (Canada) Ltd., 1994 CanLII 9880

Scott T. Williams

6 cases1994–2014

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

Chris Dassios

8 cases1994–2000

H. Kobryn

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

F. B. Reaume

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 19, 1994

Jurisdictional dispute over powerline refurbishment resolved in favour of the applicant construction union.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of work for the refurbishment of a 115KV powerline.

The employer had assigned the work to the Power Workers' Union.

The Board found that the work constituted transmission systems construction work covered by the applicant's collective agreement.

Considering past practice and economy and efficiency, the Board determined that the work should have been assigned to members of the applicant union and directed the employer to assign any remaining work accordingly.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1788 v. Ontario Hydro and Electrical Power Systems Construction Association and Power Workers' Union, 1994 CanLII 10008

Q. Ceolin

5 cases1984–2001

N. L. Jesin

M. Lewis

11 cases1991–2001

D. Buttazzoni

3 cases1994–1998

B. Griffiths

1 case1994–1994

W. N. Fraser

OLRB0 cases1988–2000

G. McMenemy

D. L. Gee