Harry Freedman

M. E. Geiger

17 cases1984–2001

Martin Rosenbaum

11 cases1986–2003

L. C. Arnold

38 cases1980–1992

Howard Roher

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

Edward J. Winter

N. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1992

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 10, 1986

D. A. MacDonald

OLRB0 cases1982–1994

Board orders document production but dismisses reconsideration request, affirming finality of accreditation certificates.

The corporate respondents sought production of certain documents and reconsideration of a previous Board decision regarding the validity of a certificate of accreditation.

The Board ordered the production of documents relating to the attempt by a group of residential low-rise contractors to join the Mechanical Contractors Association Toronto, finding them arguably relevant.

However, the Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, affirming that under section 106(1) of the Labour Relations Act, a certificate of accreditation is final and conclusive for all purposes and its validity cannot be challenged in a collateral proceeding before the Board.

The Metropolitan Plumbing and Heating Contractors Association v. O'Ryan, 1986 CanLII 1437

J. P. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1984–1987

H. Kobryn

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 8, 1986

Formal notice of hearing is not required for a continuation date when parties were previously informed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of the Board's decision dismissing its complaint and applications after it failed to attend a continuation hearing.

The applicant argued its absence was due to the Board's failure to issue a formal notice of hearing for the continuation date.

The Board held that a formal notice is not required for a continuation date when parties were informed of the date at the initial hearing, and found the applicant's unmet expectation did not justify its failure to attend.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059 v. Tonda Construction Limited, 1986 CanLII 1449

V. McNeil

M. E. Geiger

17 cases1984–2001

Martin Rosenbaum

11 cases1986–2003

L. C. Arnold

38 cases1980–1992

Howard Roher

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

Edward I. Winter

N. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1992

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 18, 1986

D. A. MacDonald

OLRB0 cases1982–1994

Board refuses to review 1973 accreditation certificate and rules on admissibility of mediator conversations.

In consolidated complaints and an application for consent to prosecute, the corporate respondents raised a preliminary issue challenging the validity of a 1973 accreditation decision and certificate, arguing it was a nullity due to jurisdictional errors.

The Board declined to permit the challenge, holding that a certificate of accreditation conclusively establishes bargaining rights until revoked or quashed, and that one panel of the Board should not act as an appellate body over another.

In a separate evidentiary ruling, the Board held that evidence of conversations with a mediator in the presence of both parties is admissible, but evidence of what a mediator said to one party in private is inadmissible to protect the confidentiality of the mediation process.

The Metropolitan Plumbing and Heating Contractors Association v. Sean O'Ryan, 1986 CanLII 1377

Jacques A. Emond

13 cases1980–2005

Denis Power

7 cases1980–1989

L. C. Collins

OLRB0 cases1983–1987

I. M. Stamp

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 20, 1986

Grievance allowed; union steward's verbal response to angry supervisor did not constitute insubordination justifying discharge.

The applicant union and grievor, a union steward, filed a grievance after the grievor was discharged following a verbal exchange with the respondent's superintendent.

The superintendent had angrily confronted the crew about their productivity, threatening to fire them, to which the grievor responded, 'I'm the shop steward, get the message.' The employer argued this constituted insubordination justifying discharge.

The Board found that the superintendent's tone provoked the response and that a union steward has the right to reasonably challenge management authority.

The Board concluded the grievor's conduct did not merit discipline, allowed the grievance, and ordered compensation for lost earnings.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local union 93 and Richard Restall v. Ottawa-Carleton Bricklaying and Masonry Limited, 1986 CanLII 1383

Robert Nioli

In Private Practice64 cases1985–2025

Richard J. Charney

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

J. MacKinnon

8 cases1986–1995

D. Randall

I. M. Stamp

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 11, 1986

C. A. Ballenttne

OLRB0 cases1986–1986

Hearing adjourned because the representative of objecting employees did not receive adequate notice.

The applicant union filed two applications for certification in the construction industry.

A group of employees filed statements of desire in opposition.

At the hearing, the representative for the objecting employees requested an adjournment, arguing he had not received adequate notice of the hearing.

The Board found that the representative had not been served with a notice of hearing because the statement he filed lacked his return address and did not explicitly identify him as the representative.

However, because the Board also failed to issue a general notice to employees at the employer's address, the representative did not receive adequate notice.

The Board granted the adjournment to allow the representative time to retain counsel.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council v. Elgin Construction Company Limited, 1986 CanLII 1412

S. C. Bernardo

42 cases1980–2001

M. E. Geiger

17 cases1984–2001

Laurence C. Arnold

24 cases1981–2001

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 30, 1986

Application for relief under section 135 dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over section 131 violations.

The applicant, an accredited employers' organization, applied for relief under section 135 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the corporate respondents violated section 131 by entering into an agreement with the respondent union.

The Board determined that section 135 only applies to unlawful strikes or lock-outs.

Since the employees had returned to work, there was no ongoing strike.

The Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 135 to remedy an alleged violation of section 131 and dismissed the application, noting the applicant could bring a complaint under section 89.

Metropolitan Plumbing and Heating Contractors Association v. Sean O'Ryan, 1986 CanLII 1510

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Peter M. Whalen

7 cases1986–1992

J. Slaughter

4 cases1986–1991

Grant Robinson

3 cases1986–1987

Bruce Binning

40 cases1981–1998

I. M. Stamp

H. Kobryn

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 15, 1986

Board dismisses reconsideration request and refuses to allow respondent to contradict its prior confirmation of an Officer's report.

The Board heard a request for reconsideration of an oral ruling regarding notice to laid-off employees, which was dismissed as the issue had already been considered.

The Board also addressed a dispute over a Labour Relations Officer's report where the respondent sought to challenge an agreed exclusion after previously confirming the report's accuracy.

The Board ruled that parties cannot make submissions contrary to their written representations filed in response to the report, and struck the disputed employee from the list.

The parties agreed to submit written arguments on the remaining issues.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Harnden & King Construction Ltd., 1986 CanLII 1483

Stanley Simpson

22 cases1981–2001

Richard J. Nixon

18 cases1982–2005

J. Tarbutt

Gaynor Halliwell

I. M. Stamp

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 9, 1986

C. A. Ballentine

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

Grievance need only state factual allegations and relevant provisions; legal theory particulars not required.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employed non-union workers without referral slips.

At the hearing, the respondent argued the applicant should be restricted to the grievance as filed and precluded from raising interpretation issues not explicitly pleaded.

The Board ruled that a grievance need only particularize the factual allegations and reference the relevant collective agreement provisions, and the respondent is not entitled to particulars of the applicant's legal theory.

The matter was adjourned to be heard alongside a related grievance.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 18 v. Ben Plastering Limited, 1986 CanLII 1494

Morris Manning

63 cases1980–2021

Bernard Fishbein

79 cases1982–2011

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 25, 1986

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

D. A. Patterson

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

Preliminary objections to grievance referral dismissed; grievance presumed delivered by mail.

The applicant referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent raised preliminary objections, arguing that the grievance was not delivered prior to the referral and that the applicant failed to follow the grievance procedure in the collective agreement.

The Board dismissed both objections, finding that the grievance was presumed delivered by mail under section 113(1) of the Act and that section 124 creates a distinct dispute resolution process separate from the collective agreement.

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 793 v. Arlington Crane Service Limited, 1986 CanLII 1590

Wayne Taylor

Paul Jarvis

12 cases1984–2000

Glenn D. Buchanan

Dan Ublansky

2 cases1986–2005

W.F. Rutherford

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

I. M. Stamp

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 15, 1986

Evidence of an employee's perceived duties is admissible to assess petition voluntariness despite bargaining unit agreement.

During a certification hearing, the applicant union sought to cross-examine the representative of the objecting employees about his duties and responsibilities to challenge the voluntariness of a statement of desire.

The respondent objected, arguing the parties had already agreed the representative was an employee in the bargaining unit.

The Board overruled the objection, holding that while such an agreement creates a rebuttable presumption that the employee does not exercise managerial functions, it does not preclude evidence regarding how other employees perceived the representative's duties and how that perception affected the voluntariness of their signatures.

Energy and Chemical Workers Union v. Petro-Canada Inc., 1986 CanLII 1583

J. P. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1984–1987

H. Kobryn

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 11, 1986

Board waived form defect and appointed Labour Relations Officer for union certification pre-hearing vote.

The applicant union filed an application for certification in the construction industry using Form 75, but requested a pre-hearing representation vote, which normally requires Form 1 under section 90 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board applied section 84 of the Rules, which states that no proceeding is invalid by reason of a defect in form, and decided to process the application as if it had been made in the proper form.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to confer with the parties, examine records, and make arrangements for a potential vote.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059 v. McKay-Cocker Construction Limited, 1986 CanLII 1580

S. MacKinnon

S. C. Bernardo

42 cases1980–2001

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

H. Layens

W.F. Rutherford

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

L M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 8, 1986

Board determines appropriate construction industry bargaining unit and appoints officer to resolve employee status disputes.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer argued the bargaining unit should be limited to the residential sector.

The Board ruled that the unit applied for, relating to the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, was appropriate under s. 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the employee status of several individuals.

The Board also declined to conduct its own inquiry into an allegation of conditional payment for union membership, ruling that the respondent must prove the allegation in the ordinary course.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059 v. Walloy Excavating Company Limited, 1986 CanLII 1591

J. P. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1984–1987

H. Kobryn

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 5, 1986

Subcontractor remains liable for unpaid vacation pay despite directing general contractor to pay its obligations.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking unpaid vacation pay for five employees.

The respondent subcontractor argued that the general contractor, Konvey Construction, should be liable because the respondent had signed an authorization directing Konvey to pay its obligations.

The Board held that the arrangement between the respondent and Konvey did not affect the respondent's obligations to the union and its members under the provincial agreement.

The Board directed the respondent to pay the agreed amounts of vacation pay.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 v. Highrock Structural Limited, 1986 CanLII 1594

Norman L. Jesin

14 cases1983–2003

Joe Carrier

5 cases1983–1988

I. M. Stamp

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 24, 1986

B. L. Armstrong

OLRB0 cases1980–1997

Related employer declaration denied due to union delay and lack of erosion of bargaining rights.

The applicant union sought a declaration under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that the respondents, Capricorn Acoustics & Drywall Ltd. and J & J Drywall, were bound by the same provincial agreement.

The respondents conceded they carried on related activities under common control.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration.

The Board found that the union had delayed in bringing the application, there was no evidence that work had been transferred from the unionized entity to the non-union entity to erode bargaining rights, and the union was attempting to use section 1(4) to acquire bargaining rights for an established non-union workforce without going through the certification process.

The application was dismissed.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1256 v. Capricorn Acoustics & Drywall Ltd., 1986 CanLII 1562

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Peter M. Whalen

7 cases1986–1992

Louis Doucette

J. Slaughter

4 cases1986–1991

G. Steers

3 cases1980–1986

Grant Robinson

3 cases1986–1987

F. Amis

2 cases1981–1986

Bruce Binning

40 cases1981–1998

Barry McCracken

I. M. Stamp

H. Kobryn

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 7, 1986

Preliminary motion regarding parties' positions in certification proceedings dismissed.

The applicant union brought a preliminary motion regarding the filings made by the respondent in a series of certification applications.

The applicant argued that an agreement on the parties' respective positions had been reached before the Labour Relations Officer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the motion, finding that no such agreement was reached and that the Board had subsequently appointed an Officer to inquire into the list and composition of the bargaining unit.

The Board directed that the applications proceed based on the positions taken at the commencement of the Officer's inquiry.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Harnden & King Construction Ltd., 1986 CanLII 1575

I. M. Stamp

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 3, 1985

C. Ballentine

OLRB0 cases1980–1986

Board dismisses preliminary objections to union certification application for surveyors in the construction industry.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of surveyors in the construction industry.

The respondent employer and intervener union raised preliminary motions arguing the unit was inappropriate because the applicant already held bargaining rights for other employees under the provincial agreement, and because the agreement lacked a wage schedule for surveyors outside Sarnia.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the motions, finding that the provincial agreement and ministerial designation covered surveyors, and that section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act permits an affiliated bargaining agent to apply for certification for unrepresented employees who would be bound by the provincial agreement.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Commonwealth Construction Company, 1985 CanLII 1113

S. A. Bernofsky

6 cases1984–1989

David I. Bloom

11 cases1983–2000

P.J. O'Keeffe

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 29, 1985

F. C. Burnet

OLRB0 cases1984–1990

Employer failed to prove employee's discharge during union organizing campaign was untainted by anti-union animus.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer discharged an employee contrary to the Labour Relations Act due to his union organizing activities.

The employee had a history of absenteeism and alcoholism but was discharged shortly after engaging in union campaigning and making a pro-union speech in the company cafeteria.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied the reverse onus under section 89(5) of the Act, requiring the employer to prove that the discharge was not tainted by anti-union animus.

The Board found the employer's explanation for delaying the discharge to consult with other managers unpersuasive and concluded the employer failed to discharge its burden of proof.

The Board ordered compensation but declined to order reinstatement as the employee had already accepted other employment prior to his discharge.

A dissenting member would have dismissed the complaint, finding ample just cause for the discharge independent of any union activity.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Honest Ed's Limited, 1985 CanLII 1093

Ian S. Campbell

19 cases1985–2012

P. Grasso

OLRB0 cases1984–1993

L M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 14, 1985

Union certified without a representation vote as current employees were sufficiently representative despite planned workforce build-up.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units (full-time and part-time) at the respondent's workplace.

The respondent argued that a representation vote should be ordered because it planned to double its workforce in the coming months.

The Board found that the current employees in both units constituted at least fifty percent of the anticipated workforce and were therefore sufficiently representative.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and issued certificates to the applicant for both bargaining units.

Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers v. Brick Brewing Co. Limited, 1985 CanLII 1088

Raj Anand

54 cases1981–2017

P. Johnson

2 cases1985–2015

Paul A. Young

4 cases1985–2016

L. Lewis

1 case1985–1985

Ivor Oram

7 cases1983–1987

G. Brillinger

1 case1985–1985

C. M. Mitchell

38 cases1980–1999

Brian P. Smeenk

34 cases1982–2012

L. C. Collins

OLRB0 cases1983–1987

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Harry Freedman