G. T. Surdykowski

Jim Schroeder

George McNenemy

Elizabeth Mitchell

31 cases1988–2001

D. Brent Labord

14 cases1989–2015

W. N. Fraser

OLRB0 cases1988–2000

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 14, 1990

C. McDonald

OLRB0 cases1987–1998

Painting of a student residence for decorative purposes constitutes construction work for union certification purposes.

The applicant trade union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer argued it was not an employer in the construction industry, asserting that the painting work performed by its employees at a university student residence was maintenance rather than construction.

The Board held that the primary purpose of the painting was decorative, not to sustain or protect the function of the premises, and therefore constituted construction work.

Consequently, the Board found the respondent to be an employer in the construction industry and granted the application for certification.

A dissenting board member would have found the work to be maintenance.

International Brotherhood of Painters & Allied Trades Local 1824 v. Courtesy Group Inc., 1990 CanLII 5750

J. Woszynski

W. Gibson

OLRB0 cases1980–1990

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 7, 1990

C. A. Ballentine

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

Board declined to intervene in Labour Relations Officer's inquiry to rule on cross-examination objection.

During an examination conducted by a Labour Relations Officer, the intervener objected to the applicant's cross-examination questions, arguing they improperly referenced non-existent testimony to cast doubt on the witness's credibility.

The intervener submitted a letter confirming the objection.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to intervene, noting that its practice is to deal with such objections after receiving the Officer's report and the parties' submissions.

The Board further observed that questions raising issues of credibility are not generally improper.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council v. Maple Engineering & Construction Canada Ltd., 1990 CanLII 5754

Paul Gordon

2 cases1990–1990

Fred Bickford

11 cases1986–2014

R. M. Sloan

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 29, 1990

D. A. Patterson

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

Union breached duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to execute collective agreement after final offer vote.

The employer applied for a declaration of an unlawful strike after the union refused to sign a collective agreement reflecting a final offer that had been accepted in a section 40 vote.

The union argued the bargaining unit only covered marine operations, not woods operations, and challenged the eligibility of several voters.

The Board found that the bargaining unit included both operations and determined the eligibility of disputed voters, concluding the final offer was accepted.

The Board held that the union breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to execute the agreement, but declined to declare the strike unlawful, instead directing the union to sign the agreement.

Prosper Brizzard et al. v. Wilf McIntyre et al., 1990 CanLII 5713

Robert J. Atkinson

18 cases1986–2014

David A. McKee

16 cases1983–1997

B. Chercover

19 cases1980–2000

R. M. Sloan

K. Davies

OLRB0 cases1988–1995

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 24, 1990

Board declined to defer grievance pending a jurisdictional dispute until a collective agreement breach is established.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance alleging the respondents failed to hold a mark-up meeting regarding scaffolding erection for elevator construction.

An intervening union requested the Board defer the grievance, arguing it was essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment.

The Board dismissed the request to defer, directing that the grievance proceed to a hearing on whether the collective agreement was breached.

The Board held that while a jurisdictional dispute was at the root of the damages claim, it would be premature to embark on a jurisdictional dispute proceeding before a breach of the collective agreement was established.

The Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council v. The Electrical Power Systems Construction Association, 1990 CanLII 5708

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 7, 1990

D. A. Patterson

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

Print Shop Supervisor excluded from bargaining unit for confidentiality; Behaviour Counsellors found to be employees.

The applicant trade union sought a determination under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act as to whether a Print Shop Supervisor and five Behaviour Counsellors were employees within the meaning of the Act.

The Board found that the Print Shop Supervisor was not an employee because she was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

However, the Board found that the Behaviour Counsellors did not exercise managerial functions or have access to confidential labour relations information, and were therefore employees under the Act.

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1680 v. Peterborough County Board of Education, 1990 CanLII 5782

W. A. Correll

OLRB0 cases1986–1995

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 29, 1990

E. G. Theobald

OLRB0 cases1983–1995

Board authorized Labour Relations Officer to inquire into employee status of Network/Communications Co-ordinator.

The applicant employer applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether a Network/Communications Co-ordinator is an 'employee' for the purposes of the Act, arguing the position involves access to confidential labour relations files.

The respondent union opposed the exclusion.

The Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into and report on the duties and responsibilities of the position.

Metropolitan Toronto Police Association v. Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 343, 1990 CanLII 5848

Michael Horan

38 cases1980–2001

J. A. Raso

C. Coffin

2 cases1989–1990

R. W Pirrie

OLRB0 cases1985–1998

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 8, 1990

C. McDonald

OLRB0 cases1987–1998

Board directs representation vote, finding family relationship did not render statement of desire involuntary.

The applicant, an employee and son of the employer's co-owner, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the statement of desire was involuntary due to the family relationship between the applicant, two other employee relatives, and the employer.

The Board found no evidence of employer interference or that the family relationship impaired the employees' ability to voluntarily express their true wishes.

The Board concluded the statement of desire was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

Alan Reitzel v. The Sheet Metal Workers' International Association et al., 1990 CanLII 5840

G. F. Luborsky

10 cases1983–1999

Chris G. Paliare

192 cases1980–2026

P. V. Grasso

OLRB0 cases1983–1997

M. Rozenberg

OLRB0 cases1988–1991

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 27, 1990

Reprisal complaint dismissed; employee discharged for insubordination and poor attitude, not for supporting a grievance.

The complainant union and employee alleged that the respondent college discharged the employee because he supported and was expected to testify in another employee's grievance arbitration, contrary to section 80(1) of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The Board found that the employee's attitude and performance had deteriorated significantly after he was bumped from a full-time position, characterized by chronic lateness and insubordination.

The Board concluded that the discharge was the inevitable result of the employee's poor conduct and insubordination, culminating in a confrontation with his supervisor, and was not motivated by anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

Ontario Public Service Employees' Union v. Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology, 1990 CanLII 5814

Don Thompson

2 cases1990–1993

Bruce Binning

40 cases1981–1998

Bernard Fishbein

78 cases1982–2011

W. N. Fraser

OLRB0 cases1988–2000

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 20, 1990

C. A. Ballentine

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

Board upheld its strict date-of-application rule for construction industry certification despite Sunday filing.

The applicant union filed an application for certification by registered mail on a Sunday.

The respondent employer and objecting employees argued that the Board should depart from its standard construction industry practice of assessing membership support based solely on the employees at work on the application date, arguing it would be inequitable given the weekend filing and the employer's normally larger weekday workforce.

The Board reviewed its jurisprudence regarding the 'date of application' rule in the construction industry and declined to depart from its established practice, finding no compelling reason to do so.

The matter was directed to be scheduled for a hearing on the remaining issues, including the union's request for certification under section 8.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 120 v. Al Gordon Electric Limited, 1990 CanLII 5806

M. A. Church

9 cases1981–1990

Donald B. Francis

2 cases1989–1990

Bruce Wallace

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 11, 1990

Board declares unlawful strike and issues cease and desist orders after employees refuse to cross picket line.

The applicant employer sought a declaration that the respondent employees engaged in an unlawful strike by refusing to cross a picket line established by another union at a construction site.

The respondents conceded the facts but argued their refusal was justified due to threats of violence on the picket line, analogizing to the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found no legal justification for the unlawful strike, granted the declaration, and issued cease and desist directions.

Horton CBI, Limited v. Evans, 1990 CanLII 5804

W. J. McNaughton

30 cases1980–2000

S. Raso

Ray Kurki

2 cases1989–1990

Peter Chauvin

11 cases1986–2001

Mark Contini

25 cases1981–2023

M. A. Church

9 cases1981–1990

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

D. A. McKee

6 cases1985–1996

W. Gibson

OLRB0 cases1980–1990

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 15, 1990

C. A. Ballentine

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

Board declined to inquire into jurisdictional dispute after the underlying grievance demanding the work was withdrawn.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work by a subcontractor.

The respondent union had initially filed a grievance demanding the work, but later withdrew it.

The respondent union then brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction or should decline to inquire into the complaint since there was no longer a demand to change the work assignment.

The Board held that, assuming it had jurisdiction, it was appropriate to exercise its discretion not to inquire further into the complaint because the underlying dispute had disappeared with the withdrawal of the grievance.

The complaint was dismissed.

International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95 v. E.S. Fox Limited, 1990 CanLII 5824

Pamela Yudcovitch

13 cases1988–2016

Murray Dietrich

M. G. Horan

12 cases1981–1995

Karl Ball

2 cases1982–1990

Harold F. Caley

51 cases1980–2003

E. Bairos

2 cases1988–1990

Craig Flood

36 cases1988–2019

W. N. Fraser

OLRB0 cases1988–2000

J. Redshaw

OLRB0 cases1986–1997

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 11, 1990

Hearing adjourned to allow applicants to name and serve appropriate affiliated bargaining agents.

The applicants sought declarations terminating bargaining rights.

At the hearing, the Board raised concerns regarding the named respondents, sufficiency of notice, and bargaining unit descriptions, noting that affiliated bargaining agents had not been named or served.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing to allow the applicants to name and serve the appropriate parties, without prejudice to the respondents' right to argue the applications were void ab initio.

The Board adjourned the hearing and directed that related unfair labour practice and grievance files be scheduled to be heard together with these applications.

Angelo Ganassin v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 785, 1990 CanLII 5823

M. Rozenberg

OLRB0 cases1988–1991

H. Kobryn

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 10, 1990

Union denied monetary damages for employer's failure to disclose equipment shutdown during bargaining due to insufficient evidence of loss.

Following a finding that the respondent breached section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to disclose its intention to shut down a turbine during collective bargaining, the Board held a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy.

The complainant union sought monetary compensation for lost wages, lost opportunities for increased wages, and expenses incurred.

The Board dismissed the claims for monetary damages, finding insufficient evidence that the union could have negotiated a better outcome or retained the positions had the disclosure been made.

The Board issued a declaration of the breach but declined to award further compensatory relief.

One Board Member dissented, stating he would have awarded the compensatory relief claimed.

Local 865, International Union of Operating Engineers v. Canadian Pacific Forest Products Limited, 1990 CanLII 5820

W. Gibson

OLRB0 cases1980–1990

P. V. Grasso

OLRB0 cases1983–1997

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 9, 1990

Consent adjournment granted sine die with a warning regarding late notice squandering Board resources.

The parties requested a last-minute adjournment of a scheduled hearing on consent.

The Board granted the adjournment sine die for a period not to exceed one year, but issued a strong warning to the parties and counsel about the squandering of the Board's limited resources caused by late adjournment requests.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. 560742 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. Canada Framing, 1990 CanLII 5818

Y. Fricot

2 cases1990–1991

Paul LeCuyer

Paul Gordon

2 cases1990–1990

F. J. W. Bickford

16 cases1981–1994

D. Dubinsky

R. M. Sloan

G. T. Surdykowski

D. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 5, 1990

The Board has jurisdiction to determine voter eligibility in a section 40 final offer vote.

The employer filed a complaint alleging that the union engaged in an unlawful strike by failing to sign a collective agreement after employees allegedly voted to accept the employer's final offer under section 40 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union challenged the Board's jurisdiction to determine voter eligibility for the section 40 vote, arguing only the Minister could do so.

The Board ruled that it has the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints under the Act and therefore has the authority to determine voter eligibility questions arising from a section 40 vote in order to dispose of the unlawful strike complaint.

Prosper Brizzard et al. v. Wilf McIntyre et al., 1990 CanLII 5664

R. M. Sloan

G. T. Surdykowski

D. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 12, 1990

Board declined to intervene in ongoing Labour Relations Officer inquiry, finding objections premature.

The respondent union complained by letter about the conduct of a Labour Relations Officer designated to conduct an inquiry and requested directions from the Board.

The Board declined to intervene, noting that Practice Note No. 4 establishes the procedure for such inquiries and that an Officer has discretion within those parameters.

The Board held that it would be inappropriate to intervene in the midst of the inquiry, as the proper time to rule on such objections is after receiving the Officer's report and the parties' submissions on it.

The union's requests were denied without prejudice to its right to raise the objections at the proper time.

Prosper Brizzard et al. v. Wilf McIntyre et al., 1990 CanLII 5734

James G. Knight

12 cases1986–2015

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

Carl Peterson

53 cases1984–2023

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

S. Weslak

OLRB0 cases1989–1990

J. Lear

OLRB0 cases1989–1992

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 6, 1989

Craft trade union permitted to carve out its craft from an existing broader construction industry bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the respondents in the construction industry.

The respondents and the intervener argued that the appropriate bargaining unit should be the existing broader unit of all employees engaged in concrete forming construction, and that the applicant should not be permitted to carve out its craft.

The Board held that, consistent with its general practice in the construction industry and the provisions of the Labour Relations Act, a craft trade union is entitled to carve out its craft from an existing broader bargaining unit.

The Board found no compelling reason to depart from this practice and determined the appropriate bargaining unit accordingly.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27 v. Shearwall Forming (East) Ltd., 1989 CanLII 2990

P. V. Grasso

OLRB0 cases1983–1997

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 24, 1989

D. A. MacDonald

OLRB0 cases1982–1994

Board orders single ballot in representation vote counted despite employee's concerns over loss of anonymity.

In a union certification application, a pre-hearing representation vote resulted in only one eligible ballot being cast.

The employee who cast the ballot wrote to the Board requesting that it not be opened, fearing retaliation from the union or the employer since his vote would not be secret.

The Board declined to depart from its previous decisions ordering the ballot to be counted, noting that a voter cannot withdraw a ballot once cast.

The Board emphasized that the Labour Relations Act provides ample protection against retaliatory action for participating in Board proceedings and directed the Registrar to count the ballot.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27 v. Mollenhauer Limited, 1989 CanLII 3015

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

A. J. Ahee

18 cases1986–2001

G. T. Surdykowski