Harry Freedman

Geoffrey Lee

David Strang

47 cases1983–2009

Brenda Kops

2 cases1985–1987

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 2, 1987

G. O. Shamanski

OLRB0 cases1986–1994

C. A. Ballentine

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

Board issues certification after finding cleanup work unrelated to renovations is not construction work.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The parties disputed whether three employees performing cleanup work at a recently purchased building were construction labourers.

The Board found that the cleanup work was not closely connected to planned renovations and therefore was not construction work.

Having resolved the bargaining unit composition, the Board found the union had the requisite membership support and issued certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic areas.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 v. Ming Sun Holdings Inc., 1987 CanLII 3154

W. H. Wightman

J. Redshaw

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 21, 1987

Union certification granted without a hearing; employer's claims of financial hardship deemed irrelevant.

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

The respondent employer requested a hearing, arguing that certification would cause severe financial hardship and that temporary employees should not be counted.

The Board declined to hold a hearing, finding that the consequences of certification and the temporary nature of employment are not relevant to the statutory determinations required for certification.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support of more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the bargaining unit, the Board granted the application and issued the certificates.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1687 v. John Anthony Waite c.o.b. as J. C. Electric, 1987 CanLII 3098

M. Mihajlovic

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

H. Peacock

OLRB0 cases1987–2001

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 7, 1987

Construction manager found to be the employer of casual labourers due to fundamental control exercised.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent A. J. MacKinnon & Associates argued it was not the employer of the affected employees.

The Board added Angus J. MacKinnon Consultants Limited as a respondent and declared the two entities one employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that Consultants, acting as a construction manager, exercised fundamental control over the casual labourers' working lives, including hiring, firing, and directing their day-to-day work.

Consequently, the Board determined that Consultants was the employer for the purposes of the application.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council v. A. J. MacKinnon & Associates, 1987 CanLII 3117

William S. Challis

9 cases1981–1995

Mary Grady

Lynn Harper

Louisa Davie

4 cases1984–1987

Jill Welch

Felicity D. Briggs

Donald F.O. Hersey, Q.C.

3 cases1984–1987

L. C. Collins

OLRB0 cases1983–1987

I. F. Davidson

OLRB0 cases1987–1987

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 11, 1987

Motion to dismiss duty of fair representation complaint for lack of prima facie case denied.

The complainant, a registered nurse, filed complaints against her trade union and employer alleging violations of the Labour Relations Act, including a breach of the duty of fair representation.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint without a hearing on the merits, arguing it did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the complaint raised complex questions of fact and law that were inappropriate to determine as a preliminary matter, though it dismissed the section 64 allegation for lack of standing.

Elizabeth Balanyk v. Ontario Nurses' Association, 1987 CanLII 3078

W. Curtis

P. Turtle

17 cases1987–1998

M. E. Geiger

17 cases1984–2001

Lloyd Henning

Jerry Randall

J. Redshaw

Harry Freedman

D. A. MacDonald

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 5, 1987

Union certification granted for an 'all employees' bargaining unit in the construction industry to avoid fragmentation.

The applicant union sought certification for employees of the respondent, an employer in the construction industry.

Both parties agreed that the appropriate bargaining unit should be described as 'all employees' rather than limited to specific trades on the date of application.

The Board noted its usual practice of restricting construction industry units to specific trades to avoid jurisdictional disputes.

However, because the employees performed both construction and non-construction work, the Board found that an 'all employees' unit was appropriate to prevent fragmentation and disruption.

The Board also accepted the parties' agreement to use the phrase 'at and out of' Bowmanville, given that employees worked at various job sites.

Finding that more than 55% of the employees were union members, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

United Steelworkers of America v. Kenoyd Limited, 1987 CanLII 3296

Peter F. Chauvin

5 cases1987–2001

Marie Miszczak

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

John H. McNair

4 cases1987–1996

J. MacKinnon

8 cases1986–1995

C. Pike

R. Montague

OLRB0 cases1986–1999

J. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1987

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 5, 1987

Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed due to prior direction to settle first collective agreement.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had previously applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration, which was granted by another panel of the Board.

The Board held that under section 40a(22) of the Labour Relations Act, it must consider the applications in the order it deems appropriate, and if it grants one, it must dismiss the other.

The Board determined it was appropriate to consider the first contract application prior to the termination application.

Since the first contract application was granted, the termination application was dismissed.

Jorge Silva v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059, 1987 CanLII 3286

Robert Salisbury

10 cases1986–2016

Richard Charney

25 cases1986–2025

Martin Rosenbaum

11 cases1986–2003

Mark Geiger

12 cases1986–2016

Laurence Arnold

4 cases1986–1998

George W. Adams, Q.C.

Bryan Hackett

2 cases1986–1986

J. Redshaw

Harry Freedman

D. A. MacDonald

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 6, 1987

Board grants accreditation, finding clear and compelling reasons to segregate the low-rise residential construction sector.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for a group of employers in the construction industry.

The Board found the applicant to be a properly constituted employers' organization with the necessary authority to act as an accredited bargaining agent.

The parties agreed on a bargaining unit description that segregated the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board determined that, given the existing pattern of collective bargaining and the abandonment of bargaining rights by other associations in this specific sub-sector, there were clear and compelling reasons to divide the residential sector.

The Board approved the agreed-upon unit of employers as appropriate for collective bargaining.

Independent Plumbing & Heating Contractors Association v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 46, 1986 CanLII 1667

Robert Salisbury

10 cases1986–2016

Martin Rosenbaum

11 cases1986–2003

Mark Geiger

12 cases1986–2016

Laurence Arnold

4 cases1986–1998

Ed Winter

Bryan Hackett

2 cases1986–1986

J. Redshaw

Harry Freedman

D. A. MacDonald

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 6, 1987

Board amends 1973 accreditation certificate to exclude low-rise residential sector due to abandoned bargaining rights.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a 1973 decision and certificate of accreditation to amend the name of the accredited employers' organization, clarify the geographic scope, and exclude the low-rise part of the residential sector of the construction industry.

The Board found that the current bargaining structure, the consent of the respondent union, and the position of the Mechanical Contractors Association Toronto justified the variation.

The Board noted that the accredited employers' organization had abandoned its bargaining rights in respect of the low-rise part of the residential sector.

The Board varied the decision and certificate accordingly.

Metropolitan Plumbing and Heating Contractors Association v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 46, 1986 CanLII 1668

W. Curtis

T. Reid

R. Laird

P. Turtle

17 cases1987–1998

Norman R. A. White

3 cases1987–1992

M. E. Geiger

17 cases1984–2001

Lloyd Henning

Jerry Randall

J. Redshaw

Harry Freedman

D. A. MacDonald

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 31, 1987

A non-construction trade union may apply to certify construction industry employees under general Act provisions.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent, an employer engaged in the fabrication and erection of structural steel.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing that because it operates in the construction industry, only a trade union pertaining to the construction industry under section 117(f) of the Labour Relations Act could apply.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the respondent and its employees fall within the construction industry provisions, section 144(5) and the general provisions of the Act permit a non-construction trade union to apply for certification outside the province-wide bargaining scheme.

United Steelworkers of America v. Kenoyd Limited trading as Pickering Welding & Steel Supply, 1987 CanLII 3252

L. Steinberg

46 cases1982–2003

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 23, 1987

Application for cease and desist order against apprehended picketing dismissed as premature and unlikely.

The applicant general contractor sought discretionary relief under section 135 of the Labour Relations Act after a union representative threatened to set up an information picket line if the applicant used a non-union painting subcontractor.

The Board found that the union representative made the statements in anger but had no real intention of setting up a picket line, and no further actions were taken.

Concluding there was no strong likelihood of picketing and that the isolated statements did not warrant a cease and desist order, the Board dismissed the application.

Acme Building and Construction Limited v. The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Local Union No. 1671, 1987 CanLII 3022

Shell

Gordon

R. J. Gallivan

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

J. Kennedy

OLRB0 cases1983–1990

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 16, 1987

Reconsideration request largely dismissed, but remedial order amended regarding return to work protocol.

The respondent employer applied for reconsideration of the Board's decision and sought a stay of the remedial order.

The employer argued the Board erred in law and jurisdiction, and that the original order improperly allowed the union to dictate the return to work protocol.

The Board dismissed the majority of the reconsideration request, finding no errors in its original decision or its internal consultation process.

However, the Board amended its remedial order regarding damages to clarify that the return to work protocol should be negotiated, changing the end date for compensation to the date the employer presents a non-discriminatory protocol.

One Board Member dissented, stating the reconsideration request should be granted in full.

United Steelworkers of America v. Shaw-Almex Industries Limited, 1987 CanLII 3019

R. R. Montague

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

J. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1987

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 10, 1987

Request for reconsideration to issue Minutes of Settlement as a Board decision dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that had set out Minutes of Settlement and terminated the proceedings.

The applicant sought to have the Minutes issued as a decision of the Board rather than terminating the application.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the parties had not requested specific orders or declarations, nor had they stipulated the factual elements necessary for the Board to make such orders.

The Board varied its decision only to note the signatory on behalf of the applicant.

Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council v. Elmont Construction Limited, 1987 CanLII 3025

S. C. Bernardo

42 cases1980–2001

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Laurence C. Arnold

24 cases1981–2001

J. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1987

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 9, 1987

C. A. Ballentine

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

Board defers hearing merits of work assignment complaint pending determination of construction industry sector.

The applicant union requested that the Board defer hearing the merits of a work assignment complaint until it determined, under section 150 of the Labour Relations Act, which sector of the construction industry the disputed work fell into.

The respondents and intervener opposed the deferral, arguing the sector issue should be decided alongside the merits.

The Board agreed with the applicant, finding that the sector determination was integral to the complaint and could involve other parties with standing.

The Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer to identify parties for the sector determination and directed that the same panel hear both the sector issue and the merits.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 463 v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 597, 1987 CanLII 2992

Stephen Krashinsky

In Private Practice19 cases1980–2014

Richard J. Charney

In Private Practice64 cases1985–2025

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 7, 1987

C. A. Ballentine

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

Motion to exclude evidence allegedly obtained through employer unfair labour practices dismissed; relevant evidence remains admissible.

During an application for certification, the applicant union brought a motion to exclude evidence regarding how it obtained membership evidence.

The union alleged the employer obtained this information by violating the Labour Relations Act and argued for an exclusionary rule similar to section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the motion, holding that the Board is not a criminal court and that relevant evidence is admissible regardless of how it was obtained, following the common law rule in Wray.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council v. Elgin Construction Company Limited, 1987 CanLII 3003

J. Redshaw

Harry Freedman

D. A. MacDonald

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 23, 1986

Union certification granted for bricklayers in the construction industry in specified geographic areas.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for bricklayers and bricklayers' apprentices employed by the respondent in the construction industry.

The respondent failed to file a reply.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support and determined the appropriate geographic area for the bargaining unit.

The Board granted the application and issued certificates for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector province-wide, and for all other sectors in the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the United Counties of Prescott and Russell.

International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local 7 Canada v. E/E Fradema Masonry, 1986 CanLII 1521

Randolph S. Kinghorne

Not Practising Law66 cases1981–2021

Michael Horan

38 cases1980–2001

Michael Gordon

40 cases1980–1991

Brian Shell

R. J. Gallivan

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

J. Kennedy

OLRB0 cases1983–1990

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 22, 1986

Employer's refusal to displace strike replacements in favour of striking employees constituted an unfair labour practice.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by refusing to agree to a return-to-work protocol that would displace strike replacements in favour of striking employees, and by subsequently withdrawing its monetary offer.

The employer argued that the reverse onus provision in section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act violated its equality rights under section 15 of the Charter.

The Board held that section 89(5) does not violate the Charter because the distinction between employers and others is not based on personal characteristics protected by section 15.

On the merits, the Board found that the employer's insistence on retaining strike replacements while recalling striking employees only as vacancies arose was motivated by a desire to discriminate against the strikers for exercising their right to strike, violating sections 64 and 66 of the Act.

Consequently, the employer's bargaining stance also violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15.

The Board ordered the employer to table a non-discriminatory return-to-work protocol and compensate the striking employees.

United Steelworkers of America v. Shaw-Almex Indusries Limited, 1986 CanLII 1534

Mark D. Contini

23 cases1986–2024

J. David Watson

19 cases1986–2020

H. Kobryn

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 18, 1986

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

Board orders separate bargaining units for shop and construction employees of railing manufacturer.

The applicant union sought certification for a single all-employee bargaining unit encompassing both the respondent's shop employees and its on-site construction installers.

The respondent argued for separate bargaining units.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the respondent engaged in both construction and non-construction activities but did not use a common work force for both.

Consequently, the Board ruled that the shop employees and the construction employees must constitute separate bargaining units, leaving the precise descriptions to be determined with a Labour Relations Officer.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27 v. Metro Railing Ltd., 1986 CanLII 1525

S. Wahl

9 cases1980–2000

S. C. Bernardo

42 cases1980–2001

J. Cameron Nolan

3 cases1986–2001

D. L. Brisbin

8 cases1980–1987

B. Timmins

A.M. Minsky

11 cases1980–2008

H. Kobryn

Harry Freedman

D. A. MacDonald

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 21, 1986

Complaint dismissed for lack of standing as complainants were not directly affected by the impugned agreement.

The complainants, members of IBEW Local 105, alleged that the respondents violated the Labour Relations Act by performing industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector construction work under a maintenance agreement rather than the provincial agreement.

The respondents moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the complainants lacked standing because they were not employees in the bargaining unit, had not worked under the agreement, and had not been refused employment.

Consequently, their interests were too remote to establish a violation of the Act.

James Clarke et al. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers et al., 1986 CanLII 1476

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

R. Lotito

9 cases1985–1998

Richard J. Charney

In Private Practice64 cases1985–2025

Karl Mallette

5 cases1983–1989

John Cartwright

3 cases1984–1986

James Smith

14 cases1986–2025

Ernesto Arduini

2 cases1986–1995

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

Carl W. Peterson

18 cases1986–2020

N. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1992

Harry Freedman

D. A. MacDonald