H. Kobryn

I. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1983–1986

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 21, 1983

Employer violated collective agreement by failing to employ union member to operate construction elevator.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by failing to employ an operating engineer to operate an elevator used for lifting men and materials on a construction site.

The employer argued that the management rights clause gave it the discretion to decide whether to employ an operator.

The Board held that article 2.2 of the collective agreement required the onsite operation of the elevator to be performed by a union member whenever it was used to move men and materials.

The grievance was allowed and the employer was ordered to compensate the union for the losses flowing from the breach.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Operating Engineers Employer Bargaining Agency and Ellis-Don Limited, 1983 CanLII 807

R. C. Filion

29 cases1980–1996

L. A. MacLean

20 cases1980–1993

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

H. Kobryn

E. J. Brady

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 11, 1983

Board clarifies application of reverse onus and scope of reply evidence in unfair labour practice complaints.

During the hearing of an application for certification and related unfair labour practice complaints, the Board ruled on preliminary issues regarding the applicability of the reverse onus provision in section 89(5) of the Labour Relations Act and the scope of reply evidence.

The Board held that section 89(5) applies to allegations of employer misconduct affecting employment, including threats and interrogations, but not to general allegations of management interference that do not affect employment status.

The Board further ruled that the applicant, having elected to proceed first, could not split its case and must adduce all its evidence in chief, subject to a limited right of reply.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Wilco-Canada Inc., 1983 CanLII 819

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

F. J. W. Bickford

16 cases1981–1994

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

I. M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1982–1988

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 22, 1982

Board directs employer to comply with written settlement of unfair labour practice complaint.

The complainant union filed a section 89 complaint alleging the respondent employer failed to comply with a prior written settlement.

During the proceedings, the parties reached a new Memorandum of Settlement.

A third-party union attempted to intervene late to object to the settlement, but the Board rejected the intervention as the union had previously withdrawn its appearance.

The Board directed the respondent to comply with the new Minutes of Settlement.

Labourers International Union of North America, Local 697 v. Tamarron Group Inc., 1982 CanLII 976

C.G. Riggs

5 cases1981–2004

Brian Shell

Not Practising Law66 cases1981–2021

B.J. Bowlby

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

H. Kobryn

George W. Adams

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 8, 1982

Union's political canvassing on company property during non-working hours is not protected under the Labour Relations Act.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by prohibiting on-the-job political canvassing by union members on company property during non-working hours.

The canvassing was in support of the Canadian Labour Congress and the New Democratic Party during a federal by-election.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that while the activity may be lawful, it is too remotely connected to the dominant purpose of the Act—collective bargaining—to be protected as a statutory right.

The Board found that the communications were aimed at employees as voters rather than as employees, and thus the employer's prohibition did not violate the Act.

United Steelworkers of America v. The Adams Mine, Cliffs of Canada Ltd., 1982 CanLII 978

Robert Adourian

Maurice A. Green

34 cases1980–2009

B. R. Baldwin

8 cases1981–1991

Kevin M. Burkett

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 7, 1982

Employer breached duty to bargain in good faith by insisting on employee ratification and refusing to execute agreement.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer breached the Labour Relations Act by refusing to execute a collective agreement based on its last offer.

The employer had insisted on a clause requiring employee ratification of the agreement.

After the employees rejected the offer but also voted against a strike, the union accepted the employer's offer.

The employer refused to sign, citing the lack of employee ratification.

The Board held that the employer's insistence on employee ratification and refusal to execute the agreement constituted an unlawful attempt to bypass the union and deal directly with employees, breaching sections 15 and 64 of the Act.

The Board directed the employer to execute the collective agreement.

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Treco Machine & Tool Limited, 1982 CanLII 982

D. Jane Forbes-Roberts

14 cases1981–1986

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 3, 1982

Grievance dismissed as the subject matter was resolved by a prior settlement between the parties.

The union referred a grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act claiming the employer failed to comply with the collective agreement.

The employer objected that the grievance was barred by the settlement of an earlier grievance involving the same parties, project, and time period.

The Board found that the earlier settlement, which resolved the union's general claim of non-compliance without a claim for compensation, implicitly included any claim for compensation.

The Board held that the subject matter of the current grievance had been settled and dismissed the application.

Teamsters Local Union No. 230 v. Bot Construction (Canada) Limited, 1982 CanLII 964

H. Kobryn

Corinne F. Murray

OLRB0 cases1982–1985

C. G. Bourne

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 30, 1982

Reconsideration of decision dismissing application to terminate bargaining rights denied where union had majority support.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision dismissing her application under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The applicant also requested a representation vote, relying on an undated petition signed by 46 employees.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the union had majority support at the time the voluntary recognition agreement was entered into.

The Board held that a representation vote under section 60(2) can only be ordered where there is uncertainty as to the union's entitlement to represent the employees at the time the agreement was made, which was not the case here.

Angela Lopardo v. The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, 1982 CanLII 1007

Robin B. Cumine, Q.C.

5 cases1980–1984

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

W. Gibson

OLRB0 cases1980–1990

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 30, 1982

Board refused to admit extrinsic evidence to contradict a collective agreement that unambiguously excluded residential construction.

The applicant union applied for certification of construction labourers employed by the respondent in the residential sector.

The respondent argued that an existing working agreement with the Toronto Building and Construction Trades Council already covered these employees and sought to introduce extrinsic evidence of an oral understanding to that effect.

The Board refused to admit the extrinsic evidence, finding the written agreement unambiguously excluded residential construction.

The Board held that parties cannot contract out of the Labour Relations Act and that estoppel cannot prevent the operation of a public statute.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and authorized a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into its composition.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. J. D. S. Investments Limited, 1982 CanLII 995

W. Gibson

OLRB0 cases1980–1990

N. B. Satterfield

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 24, 1982

Board reconsiders certification due to lack of notice and finds sale of business occurred.

The Board reconsidered its prior decision certifying Local 183 because Local 1190 did not receive notice of the application due to a postal strike.

The Board revoked the original certificate and issued an amended one, recognizing that a collective agreement binding Local 1190 and the employer acted as a partial bar for high-rise residential projects.

The Board also found that a sale of part of a business occurred between Camay Carpentry Limited and J.C. Carpentry, binding the latter to the existing collective agreement.

However, the Board declined to declare the respondents a single employer under section 1(4) of the Act, finding no useful labour relations purpose.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. J.C. Carpentry, 1982 CanLII 994

H. Kobryn

D. E. Franks

C. G. Bourne

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 23, 1982

Jurisdictional dispute over operation of a Horizontal Boring Mill resolved in favour of the U.A.

The complainant Machinists union filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work involving the set-up and operation of a Horizontal Boring Mill at the Darlington Construction site.

The employer, Ontario Hydro, had assigned the work to members of the U.A. The Board considered criteria including collective bargaining relationships, skill and training, economic considerations, and employer practice.

The Board found that economic considerations and employer practice favoured the U.A., as the machine was used for a limited purpose in a pipe fabrication shop where U.A. members were already working.

The Board confirmed the assignment to the U.A. and dismissed the complaint.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Ontario Hydro, 1982 CanLII 1001

M. Zigler

17 cases1980–2013

D. Jane Forbes-Roberts

14 cases1981–1986

W. H. Wightman

H. Kobryn

D. E. Franks

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 12, 1982

Union directed to issue work permit to directly hired first-year apprentice under collective agreement.

The applicant employer referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union improperly refused to issue a work permit to a newly hired first-year apprentice.

The employer had hired the apprentice directly, relying on clause 2.05(a) of the collective agreement.

The Board, following a previous decision interpreting the same clause, found that the employer was entitled to hire the new apprentice since its shop ratio was in order.

Consequently, the Board directed the union to supply the apprentice with a regular work permit without delay.

The Master Insulators' Association of Ontario Inc. and Misco Insulation Company Limited v. International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95, 1982 CanLII 1011

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 10, 1982

Board assumes jurisdiction over grievances arising during statutory freeze where no collective agreement is in force.

The complainant union filed grievances after the expiry of the previous collective agreement but during the statutory freeze periods triggered by its certification application and subsequent notice to bargain.

The employer refused to appoint an arbitrator, arguing the grievances were not arbitrable.

The union requested the Ontario Labour Relations Board to compel arbitration or hear the complaints itself under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declined to compel arbitration, noting a board of arbitration might lack jurisdiction without an active collective agreement.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction to hear the complaints as alleged violations of the statutory freeze under section 79.

United Steelworkers of America v. Montebello Metal Inc., 1982 CanLII 998

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

R. Sutherland

3 cases1982–2023

Nicolas Canizares

7 cases1982–2021

H. Stewart

4 cases1982–1983

Barry Edson

10 cases1980–1999

H. Kobryn

Corinne F. Murray

OLRB0 cases1982–1985

C. G. Bourne

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 2, 1982

Application to order a representation vote following a voluntary recognition agreement dismissed.

The applicant sought a declaration that the respondent union was not entitled to represent the employees at the time a voluntary recognition agreement was entered into with the intervener employer.

The applicant conceded that the union had majority support but requested the Board exercise its discretion under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act to order a representation vote.

The Board declined to order a vote, finding no evidence to justify upsetting the settlement between the union and employer.

The Board also declined the union's request for an order confirming its representative status, noting this would inappropriately grant it certified status.

The application was dismissed.

Angela Lopardo v. The International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, 1982 CanLII 1006

N. B. Satterfield

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 22, 1982

Trainees in a government-funded program performing work functions are employees under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent office and clerical employees of the respondent training centre.

The parties disputed whether five persons participating in a government-funded training program for office skills were employees within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that despite being in a learning situation for a limited term, the persons performed work functions for the respondent, were paid by the respondent, and were subject to statutory deductions.

The Board concluded they were employees and included them in the bargaining unit, ultimately granting the certificate.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Industrial Resource Centre (Windsor/Essex) Inc., 1982 CanLII 1020

W. G. Donnelly

Ian Springate

OLRB0 cases1981–1988

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 21, 1982

Work refusal complaint dismissed; crane operator's refusal was motivated by frustration, not safety concerns.

The complainant, an overhead crane operator, was sent home and issued a written warning for insubordination after refusing to move a crane.

He filed a complaint alleging the discipline violated section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, claiming he was exercising his right to refuse unsafe work under section 23.

The Board found that at the time of the refusal, the crane was stationary with its lifting device raised, posing no danger.

The Board concluded the refusal was motivated by frustration with a trainee foreman rather than genuine safety concerns.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting on the basis that the workplace's haphazard approach to crane safety justified the complainant's actions.

Dennis Wawia v. Inco Metals Company, 1982 CanLII 1037

Rick Harkness

James Caron

2 cases1982–1983

Geoffrey M. Smith

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

Anthony Little

5 cases1982–2018

R. J. Swenor

OLRB0 cases1982–1986

H. Kobryn

D. E. Franks

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 20, 1982

Union certification affirmed; failure to notify objectors of initial hearing cured by subsequent hearing.

The applicant union was previously certified by the Board, but objecting employees were not given notice of the initial hearing.

The objecting employees argued this was a denial of natural justice and requested the proceedings be recommenced.

The Board held a second hearing to allow the objectors to make representations.

The Board found that the objectors' petition would not have affected the union's representative status even if given maximum weight.

As the objectors declined to call evidence or make substantive representations at the second hearing, the Board concluded any prejudice was cured and affirmed its decision to issue the certificates.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 1316 v. Can-Am Acoustics Limited, 1982 CanLII 1033

Mike Quesnel

Lewis Gottheil

30 cases1982–2016

Laurence C. Arnold

24 cases1981–2001

Aranado Collafracchesci

M. G. Picher

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 17, 1982

Board confirms assignment of drywall taping work to Bricklayers based on established area practice in Kingston.

The Bricklayers filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of drywall taping work at a shopping mall construction project in Kingston.

The employer, Brunswick Drywall, had a collective agreement with the Painters but assigned the work to the Bricklayers at the general contractor's instruction.

The Board considered area practice, noting that the Bricklayers had performed drywall taping almost exclusively in the Kingston area for many years.

The Board confirmed the assignment of the work to the Bricklayers for this specific project.

The International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen and its Local 10 v. The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, 1982 CanLII 949

T. Neil

3 cases1982–1997

Matti Rissamen

Karl Ball

2 cases1982–1990

Douglas J. Wrav

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

M. G. Picher

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 5, 1982

Leave to withdraw jurisdictional dispute application granted; Board declines to dismiss to encourage pre-hearing settlements.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its jurisdictional dispute application under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act following the completion of the pre-hearing conference process.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed rather than withdrawn.

The Board held that settlements and withdrawals after pre-hearing discovery should be encouraged without prejudice, as dismissing such applications could discourage unions from utilizing the Board's processes and lead to disruptive self-help measures.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council v. Anchor Shoring Limited, 1982 CanLII 946

N. B. Satterfield

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn