H. Kobryn

Ian Springate

OLRB0 cases1981–1988

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 20, 1982

Board finds equipment replacement is construction work; separate arrangement during ICI strike violates Labour Relations Act.

The applicants sought relief under sections 135 and 89 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondents entered into an unlawful arrangement during a lawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry.

Members of the respondent union employed by Kamtar went on strike but later returned to perform the same work for Quinard under a 'maintenance agreement'.

The Board found that the work, which involved replacing large pieces of equipment and installing new piping, constituted construction work in the ICI sector, not maintenance work.

Consequently, the arrangement between Quinard and the union violated section 146(2) of the Act.

The Board directed the respondents to cease applying the maintenance agreement and to cease supplying and employing union members on the project.

Mechanical Contractors Association Ontario v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 628, 1982 CanLII 931

Stewart D. Saxe

11 cases1982–1999

Katharine Braid

James Forrest

Alick Ryder

25 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 14, 1982

Representation vote ordered as counter-petition was deemed unreliable due to language barriers and confusing explanations.

The applicant employee filed a petition to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

A counter-petition was subsequently filed by other employees, which, if valid, would have reduced the support for decertification below the required 45 percent threshold.

The Board rejected the applicant's argument that counter-petitions are invalid as a matter of law in termination proceedings.

However, the Board found the specific counter-petition in this case to be unreliable because the majority of employees could not read English and the explanation provided to them was confusing.

As the original petition maintained the requisite support, the Board ordered a representation vote.

A. Da Cuhna and others v. Hotel, Restaurant and Cafeteria Employees Union, Local 75, 1982 CanLII 872

Stanley Simpson

R. A. Werry

38 cases1980–1994

Philip J. Wolfenden

16 cases1980–2011

L. C. Arnold

38 cases1980–1992

.J. McCarron

2 cases1982–1982

Brian P. Smeenk

34 cases1982–2012

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 14, 1982

George W. Adams, Q. C.

OLRB0 cases1982–1983

Union locals breached the Labour Relations Act by supplying workers to contractors during a province-wide strike.

The applicant employer bargaining agency alleged that during a province-wide strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, the respondent affiliated bargaining agents continued to supply union members to certain contractors.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the supply of men during a province-wide strike constituted an unlawful arrangement contrary to section 146(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also held that trade unions have an ongoing obligation under section 148(1) to take reasonable steps to ensure that a strike is called and authorized uniformly, and that the respondents breached this duty by permitting members to work.

Cease and desist orders were issued.

Mechanical Contractors Association Ontario v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 46, 1982 CanLII 885

W. Robb

2 cases1981–1982

L. C. Arnold

38 cases1980–1992

Jim Thomson

4 cases1982–1991

Bruce Binning

40 cases1981–1998

Andy Pilat

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 9, 1982

George W. Adams

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

Site-wide picketing during a lawful strike that causes unconnected trades to strike unlawfully is prohibited.

The applicants sought a declaration and cease-and-desist order against the respondent union for engaging in site-wide picketing during a lawful province-wide strike in the ICI sector.

The picketing caused employees of other trades, who were not in a legal strike position, to refuse to cross the picket lines, effectively halting all construction activity in the Sarnia area.

The Board found that while the respondent was engaged in a lawful strike, picketing directed at employees of employers unconnected to the dispute (other than by geography) constituted secondary picketing that caused an unlawful strike.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease picketing at common sites unless reserved gates were established or struck work was being performed.

Sarnia Construction Association v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 663, 1982 CanLII 883

M. Zigler

17 cases1980–2013

M. Goose

N. B. Satterfield

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 31, 1982

H.J.F. Ade

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

Related employer declaration denied where non-union company pre-dated unionized company and no erosion of bargaining rights occurred.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that a numbered company and Mandic Bros. constituted one employer, or alternatively that a sale of business occurred under section 63.

The Board dismissed the section 63 application as no evidence was presented.

Regarding section 1(4), while there was some interchange of employees and shared premises, Mandic Bros. had operated as a non-union contractor for over five years before the numbered company was formed and signed a voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration, finding no erosion of bargaining rights and noting the union could have applied for certification of Mandic Bros.

A dissenting board member would have granted the declaration.

Drywall, Acoustic, Lathing and Insulation Local 675 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. 387098 Ontario Limited and Mandic Bros. Drywall and Const. Ltd., 1982 CanLII 904

William S. Challis

9 cases1981–1995

Susan Collins

3 cases1982–1994

O. V. Gray

2 cases1981–1982

John Adema

2 cases1981–1982

J. D. Johnson

G. Whyte

2 cases1982–1982

Ernest Belanger

Ed Vanderkloet

2 cases1982–1985

B. W. Adams

8 cases1980–1995

B. Mc Queen

3 cases1981–1982

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

M. G. Mitchnick

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 28, 1982

Motion to strike complaint of unlawful picketing and strikes dismissed despite cessation of conduct.

The complainants sought a cease and desist order and damages, alleging the respondents engaged in unlawful picketing and strikes to prevent the employer from operating with members of the Christian Labour Association of Canada.

The respondents moved to strike the claims, arguing the alleged unlawful conduct had ceased months prior.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding no overriding labour-relations purpose to decline hearing the application or limiting the potential remedies before hearing the evidence.

Tecumseth Insulation Services Ltd. v. Toronto Building and Construction Trades Council, 1982 CanLII 915

R.E. Drewe

D.K. Gray

4 cases1980–2005

M. G. Mitchoick

OLRB0 cases1982–1982

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 27, 1982

H.J.F. Ade

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

Preliminary objections to OHSA reprisal complaint dismissed; withdrawal of grievance before arbitration does not bar Board complaint.

The complainant filed a reprisal complaint under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act after receiving a disciplinary notice.

The respondent employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint lacked particularity, was filed after an unreasonable delay, and was barred because the complainant had initially elected to pursue a grievance to arbitration.

The Board dismissed the objections, finding the delay was not excessive given the union's internal changes and efforts to resolve the matter.

Furthermore, the Board held that the statutory election of arbitration requires an actual adjudicative settlement; since the union withdrew the grievance before arbitration, the complainant was not barred from pursuing the matter before the Board.

Dennis Wawia v. Inco Metals Company, 1982 CanLII 902

Robert Howard

2 cases1982–1982

Ken Petryshen

17 cases1980–1985

Howard Levitt

9 cases1981–2012

M. G. Mitchnick

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 26, 1982

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union's refusal to pursue dovetailing of seniority was reasonable.

The complainants, former employees of Donline Haulage Inc., alleged that the respondent Teamsters Locals breached their duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following the acquisition of Donline's assets by Softley Cartage Limited, the complainants sought to have their seniority dovetailed with Softley's employees.

The respondent unions determined that the collective agreements did not support dovetailing and that Softley's employees had vested seniority rights.

The Board found that the unions' decision not to pursue the complainants' seniority claims was reasonable and legally justified.

Although the unions failed to communicate adequately with the complainants, this failure did not constitute a violation of section 68.

The complaint was dismissed.

Giuseppe Brundia et al. v. Teamsters Union Local 879, 1982 CanLII 913

George W. King

12 cases1982–2012

D. Stephen Jovanovic

9 cases1982–2016

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 17, 1982

Board dismisses objections to representation vote and grants union certification.

The applicant union applied for certification and a pre-hearing representation vote was held, resulting in a majority for the union.

A group of objecting employees sought a new vote, alleging that union supporters excluded them from organizational meetings and that a union representative was improperly present near the polling area during the vote.

The Board held that organizers are not required to invite all employees to organizational meetings.

The Board also found that the union representative's presence near the polling area did not destroy the secrecy of the ballot or influence the vote.

The objections were dismissed and a certificate was issued to the applicant.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, U.A.W. v. Windsor Machine & Stamping Limited, 1982 CanLII 918

N. B. Satterfield

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 17, 1982

Board directs representation vote for construction industry certification, defining voting constituency under section 144(1).

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent electricians and apprentices employed by the respondent in the construction industry, seeking to displace the incumbent union.

The respondent and intervener argued the voting constituency should match the existing collective agreement, while the applicant argued it must comply with section 144(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ruled that the voting constituency must be described in terms compatible with section 144(1) and directed a representation vote.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1687 v. Crowle Electrical Limited, 1982 CanLII 898

Sylvio Mainville

Stanley Simpson

Donald Trebilcock

David Lane

David F. Howlett

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 3, 1982

Board grants certification and includes 'professional' in bargaining unit description to avoid fragmentation.

The applicant applied for certification as the bargaining agent for certain employees of the respondent.

The Board first determined that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties agreed on most of the bargaining unit description but disputed whether the word "professional" should be included.

The applicant argued that "professional" should be added to cover future non-managerial professionals, such as psychometrists, who might not fall under "Child Care" or "Social Work" staff.

The respondent contended that "professional" was unnecessary and could lead to litigation.

The Board noted its previous decisions in the child welfare field, where "professional" staff were sometimes excluded from "all employee" units, implying that the term has meaning in this context.

To avoid potential fragmentation or exclusion of professional employees from union representation, the Board granted the applicant's request to include "professional" in the bargaining unit description.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The Professional Staff Association of the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v. The Children's Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth, 1982 CanLII 916

Stanley Simpson

D. L. Wakely

2 cases1982–1983

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 27, 1982

H.J.F. Ade

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

Grievance referral dismissed as the union abandoned its bargaining rights through years of inactivity.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board, alleging that the respondents were related or successor employers under the Labour Relations Act and were bound by a provincial collective agreement.

The Board found that the union had acquired bargaining rights for the respondent in 1974 but had made no attempt to negotiate a collective agreement since 1975.

The Board concluded that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights prior to the introduction of provincial bargaining in 1978.

Consequently, the grievance referral was dismissed.

A dissenting Board member would have found no abandonment.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 527 v. Twin City Plumbing and Heating and Groff Plumbing & Heating Limited, 1982 CanLII 827

R. J. Drmaj

6 cases1981–2000

L. C. Arnold

38 cases1980–1992

Alexander J. Ahee

5 cases1982–2000

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 22, 1982

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

Minister has authority to appoint conciliation officer after local union validly withdraws from uncertified council.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer for Local 353 and the Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council.

Local 353, previously bargaining through the Council, sought to bargain separately with the employer and gave notice of its withdrawal from the Council's bargaining unit.

The Board found that the Council acted merely as an agent for Local 353, not as a certified council of trade unions, and that Local 353 had not abandoned its individual bargaining rights.

The Board concluded that Local 353 provided proper notice under the Labour Relations Act and the collective agreement, and therefore the Minister had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer for both Local 353 and the Council (for the remaining unions).

The Board of Education for the City of Toronto v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, 1982 CanLII 863

Mr. Grant

2 cases1982–2022

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 19, 1982

Board dismisses union's request to reconsider certification decision; no denial of natural justice found.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decisions certifying the Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association, Local 172 and dismissing Local 506's subsequent application for certification.

Local 506 argued that the Board committed a jurisdictional error and denied natural justice by refusing to treat its application as having been made on the same date as Local 172's application, which would have resulted in a representation vote.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that it had properly exercised its discretion under the Labour Relations Act and its Rules of Procedure, and that no employees had been denied the right to be heard.

Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association, Local 172 v. Clifford Masonry Limited, 1982 CanLII 1070

Donald F. O. Hersev

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 18, 1982

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

Unfair labour practice complaint deferred to grievance arbitration due to mature collective bargaining relationship.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 78 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, alleging that the grievor was dealt with contrary to section 76.

The respondents raised preliminary matters, arguing that the Board should defer to grievance arbitration.

The Board applied its established principles for deferral, noting the mature collective bargaining relationship and that the dispute was primarily contractual in nature.

The Board deferred to the arbitration process and adjourned the complaint sine die for up to one year, retaining jurisdiction to ensure the arbitration outcome is fair and not repugnant to the Act.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. G. Wragg, T. Norton, and Humber College of Applied Arts and Technology, 1982 CanLII 1055

Michael Horan

38 cases1980–2001

Ken Waldinan

I. W. Fefergrad

Ian Roland

41 cases1980–2021

J. Wilson

Ian Springate

OLRB0 cases1981–1988

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 11, 1982

Union membership evidence rejected where employees borrowed the application fee without intent to repay.

In an application for certification, the Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether to accept membership evidence for two employees who had their one-dollar application fee paid by a co-worker.

The Board found that the employees had no intention of repaying the co-worker, meaning there was no financial sacrifice on their part, and therefore rejected their membership evidence.

However, the Board declined to reject the remaining membership evidence collected by the union representative, as he believed the loans were bona fide, and also declined to reject all evidence on the basis of insufficient inquiries by the Form 8 declarant.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 v. North American Canadian Developments Ltd., 1982 CanLII 1057

James B. Noonan

17 cases1980–2000

B. W. Binning

11 cases1980–2000

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 14, 1981

Board rules landscaping work on construction sites falls within construction industry and its subcontracting may be regulated.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer violated the subcontracting provision of their provincial collective agreement by subcontracting landscaping work to a non-union employer.

The parties submitted an agreed statement of facts to determine whether horticulture work was a lawful subject for bargaining and whether its subcontracting could be regulated by the agreement.

The Board found that the landscaping work fell within the definition of the construction industry and that the horticulture exception in the Act did not exclude such work per se.

The Board concluded that horticulture work is a lawful subject for bargaining and its subcontracting may be lawfully regulated by the collective agreement.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council v. The Jackson-Lewis Company Limited, 1981 CanLII 917

Stanley Simpson

D. L. Brisbin

8 cases1980–1987

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 12, 1981

D. E. Franks

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

Jurisdictional dispute complaint dismissed because the complainant union's members refused to perform the assigned work.

The complainant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work involving the insertion and removal of blanks in standpipes on a coke oven.

The employer had assigned the work on a fifty-fifty basis between the complainant and the respondent union.

The complainant union disputed this assignment, claiming 100% of the work, and its members subsequently walked off the job and refused to perform any of the work, including their assigned 50%.

The Board dismissed the complaint on preliminary objections, holding that the complainant could not claim entitlement to work that its members had explicitly refused to perform.

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 128 v. Sheafer-Townsend Construction Limited, 1981 CanLII 970

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn