H. Kobryn

I. M. Stamp

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 21, 1986

Union certification granted; Board accepted oral evidence to cure minor discrepancies in membership cards.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer challenged the membership evidence, alleging that one employee did not pay the required one dollar initiation fee.

The Board held a hearing and heard testimony from the employee, union representatives, and the collector.

Despite contradictions in the testimony and minor discrepancies on the membership card regarding the date and the actual recipient of the money, the Board accepted the oral evidence and found that the employee had paid the fee and signed the card.

The Board concluded that the union had the requisite membership support and issued a certificate.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1081 v. Rowad Pipeline Company Ltd., 1986 CanLII 1546

J. Wilson

Ian C. Springate

OLRB0 cases1983–1989

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 10, 1986

Complaint dismissed without a hearing because the Board lacks jurisdiction over teachers under the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant, a teacher, filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation alleging violations of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding that it lacked jurisdiction because section 2(f) of the Labour Relations Act explicitly excludes teachers, whose employment relations are governed by the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

Ken Johnson v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, 1986 CanLII 1540

Paul B. Kane

Not Practising Law46 cases1985–2024

David Migicovsky

David Jewitt

20 cases1981–2015

Ian C. Springate

OLRB0 cases1983–1989

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 23, 1985

A. Grant

OLRB0 cases1983–1987

Board restricts scope of summons to witness to job sites specifically named in the grievance.

During a hearing for a construction industry grievance referred under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, a dispute arose regarding the scope of a summons to witness issued at the applicant's request.

The applicant sought the production of documents relating to job sites not mentioned in the grievance and for periods extending beyond the grievance date.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ruled that the summons must be restricted to documents relating only to the two job sites specifically named in the grievance, and limited the relevant timeframe to the period between March 19, 1984, and the first day of the hearing.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2041 v. Ottawa G.S.B. Construction Co. Ltd., 1985 CanLII 1103

W Lippett

William S. Challis

9 cases1981–1995

Tony Michael

3 cases1983–1985

S. C. Bernardo

42 cases1980–2001

S. B. D. WahI

11 cases1980–1994

R. WA. Cochrane

Robert D. Statton

In Private Practice60 cases1985–2025

Richard Nixon

23 cases1983–2016

Richard J. Charney

Richard A. Monette

R. A. Werry

38 cases1980–1994

Michael T. Franck

Michael G. Horan

22 cases1980–2000

Mary-Ann Kril

Margaret Dancy

J. Redshaw

5 cases1980–1985

Jim Ross

Jim Ris

Hercules E. Faga

3 cases1985–1989

George W Adams

Frank Csaszar

E.A. Ford

6 cases1980–1986

Daniel Fryzuk

4 cases1985–1991

Bruce Binning

40 cases1981–1998

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

5. C. Bernardo

N. B. Satterlield

OLRB0 cases1985–1985

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 18, 1985

Board confirms applicant's status as a properly constituted employers' organization for accreditation purposes.

The applicant sought accreditation as the bargaining agent for employers in the sewers and watermains sector.

The respondent and interveners challenged the applicant's status, arguing it was not a properly constituted employers' organization under the Labour Relations Act due to alleged defects in its by-laws and their enactment.

The Board found that the applicant was an employers' organization within the meaning of the Act and that its by-laws were properly enacted.

The Board held that imposing additional pre-conditions for accreditation based on internal by-law provisions would exceed its jurisdiction, and concluded the applicant was a properly constituted organization.

Metropolitan Toronto Sewer and Watermain Contractors Association v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, 1985 CanLII 1109

R. Belleville

Jacques A. Emond

11 cases1980–2005

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

N. B. Satteijield

OLRB0 cases1985–1985

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 18, 1985

Workers paid on a piecework basis found to be employees, not independent contractors, for certification purposes.

The applicant union applied for certification for a unit of sheet metal workers employed by the respondent.

The parties disputed whether two workers were employees or independent contractors on the date of the application.

Applying the fourfold test, the Board found that the workers were employees paid on a piecework basis, as they did not have a chance of profit or risk of loss typical of independent contractors.

As the union had the requisite membership support, the Board issued certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and for all other sectors in the appropriate geographic area.

Local 47 Sheet Metal Workers' International Association v. Babco Plumbing Services Limited, 1985 CanLII 1107

N. B. Satterfield

I. M. Stamp

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 10, 1985

Certification granted for construction labourers but dismissed for carpenters as applicant lacked designation in ICI sector.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of construction labourers in the ICI sector and all other sectors, as well as carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in all other sectors.

The Board found that the applicant was not designated to represent carpenters in the ICI sector, and since the carpenters were employed in the ICI sector on the date of application, a unit of carpenters was not appropriate under either section 144(1) or 144(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board granted certification for the construction labourers in the ICI sector provincially and in all other sectors in the specified geographic area, and dismissed the application regarding carpenters.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 527 v. Loremar Structures Inc., 1985 CanLII 1098

Morris Manning, Q. C.

James Thomson

3 cases1985–2015

Bruce Binning

40 cases1981–1998

Bernard Fishbein

78 cases1982–2011

Robert D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1984–1995

M. Fayrs

OLRB0 cases1985–1985

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 28, 1985

Employer breached collective agreement by bypassing union hiring hall to employ non-union oiler.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by employing a non-union member as an oiler without first calling the union's hiring hall.

The Board denied the respondent's request for an adjournment pending a judicial review application.

On the merits, the Board found the respondent breached the union security clause, ordered compensation for lost wages and benefits to be paid in trust, and issued a cease-and-desist order.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Arlington Crane Service Limited, 1985 CanLII 1091

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

I. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1983–1986

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 6, 1985

Board declined to impose a bar on future termination applications as union had not actively pursued bargaining.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The application was dismissed because a counter statement of desire reduced the number of employees supporting the termination below the required 45 percent.

The respondent requested that the Board impose a bar on further applications to terminate its bargaining rights under section 103(2)(i) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declined to impose a bar, finding that the respondent had not actively pursued its bargaining rights and therefore the applications had not caused undue interference or disruption of bargaining.

Iris Price et al v. United Steelworkers of America, 1985 CanLII 1084

Brian P. Smeenk

34 cases1982–2012

Barbara Wade

Paula Knopf

OLRB0 cases1984–1997

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 25, 1985

Househeads excluded from bargaining unit for managerial functions; child care teachers included based on community of interest.

The union applied for certification to represent employees of a child and family services agency.

The parties disputed the inclusion of two classifications in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that 'househeads' exercised managerial functions, including effective recommendation on hiring, discipline, and performance evaluation, and excluded them due to a conflict of interest.

However, the Board found that 'child care teachers' shared a community of interest with the other child care workers, noting similarities in conditions of employment and functional interdependence, and included them in the bargaining unit.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Kinark Child and Family Services, 1985 CanLII 1064

R. D. Perkins

5 cases1980–1985

Ray Fourchette

Patrick Brode

26 cases1985–2023

K. J. Fitzpatrick

David Tinning

B. P. Wilson

R. Swenor

OLRB0 cases1984–1985

M. G. Mitchnick

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 18, 1985

Application for certification dismissed as the respondent was merely a payroll service, not the true employer.

The applicant union applied for certification with respect to employees performing janitorial services at the Cleary Auditorium, naming Ambassador Building Maintenance Limited as the respondent employer.

The respondent argued it merely provided a payroll service and was not the true employer.

The Board found that although a contract existed between the respondent and the auditorium, the auditorium actually hired, supervised, and set the working conditions for the employees.

Applying the "true employer" test, the Board concluded that the auditorium, not the respondent, was the true employer.

The application for certification against the respondent was dismissed.

Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union Local 75 v. The Ambassador Building Maintenance Limited, 1985 CanLII 1038

W. J. McNaughton

30 cases1980–2000

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

I. M. Stamp

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 6, 1985

Travel allowance under collective agreement must be calculated from employee's home base city, not job site.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board concerning the interpretation of the travel allowance provision in the provincial collective agreement.

The employer argued that an employee's 'base city' for calculating travel allowance was the location where they reported for work, thereby denying travel allowance to workers dispatched from Kingston to a job site in Belleville.

The Board rejected this interpretation, finding that 'base city' refers to the employee's home base or ordinary place of residence.

The Board held that employees dispatched from Kingston to Belleville were entitled to mileage allowance calculated from their base city.

Ontario Sheet Metal Workers Conference Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 269 v. E. S. Fox Ltd., 1985 CanLII 1041

W. G. Donnelly

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

Paula Knopf

OLRB0 cases1984–1997

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 11, 1985

Application for reconsideration dismissed where employer failed to attend original hearing without compelling reason.

The respondent employer applied for reconsideration of a previous Board decision, arguing that the individual who signed the voluntary recognition agreement lacked authority to bind the company, and raising issues regarding craft jurisdiction and man-hours.

The employer had failed to attend the original hearing despite receiving notice.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, noting that the employer had the opportunity to raise these issues at the initial hearing and that the evidence sought to be adduced was available at that time.

The Board emphasized the need for finality in its decisions and expressed concern over the six-month delay in bringing the reconsideration request.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 18 v. Coidmatic-Refrigeration of Canada Ltd., 1985 CanLII 996

Tony Michael

3 cases1983–1985

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

R. Lotito

9 cases1985–1998

Richard Nixon

23 cases1983–2016

R. C. Filion, Q. C.

4 cases1984–1986

L. Detoni

K. Mallette

2 cases1983–1985

John Cartwright

3 cases1984–1986

Jeffrey Davis

James B. Noonan

17 cases1980–2000

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

Christian Huc

A. Gagne

J. Wilson

Ian C. Springate

OLRB0 cases1983–1989

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 28, 1985

Construction of a non-profit nursing and retirement home falls within the ICI sector.

The Board was asked to determine whether the construction of the Baker Centre, a non-profit combined nursing home, retirement home, and day-care facility, fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector or the residential sector of the construction industry.

After hearing extensive evidence on industry practice and the nature of the facility, the Board concluded that the project fell within the ICI sector.

The Board reasoned that the facility is an institution providing a socially beneficial service, with residents conducting daily activities in shared areas under the direction of a management firm, distinguishing it from typical residential construction.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union 27 v. Janin Building and Civil Works Ltd., 1985 CanLII 974

Thomas Rees

Kevin Whitaker

8 cases1985–1992

Jim Whyte

4 cases1984–2001

H. Corporan

A. Minsky

7 cases1981–2001

Allen A. Morrow

2 cases1985–1985

Alick Ryder, Q. C.

17 cases1980–1988

W. G. Donnelly

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

Owen V. Gray

OLRB0 cases1983–1992

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 25, 1985

Union certified without a representation vote after intervener withdrew allegations of employer support.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a unit of employees at the respondent's restaurant.

The incumbent union did not oppose the application and abandoned its bargaining rights.

An intervener union initially alleged employer support for the applicant but later withdrew its intervention and abandoned its opposition following a settlement.

The Board found that the applicant had established sufficient membership support and, given the withdrawal of the intervener and the lack of compelling evidence of employer support, exercised its discretion under section 7(2) of the Labour Relations Act to certify the applicant without a representation vote.

Canadian Union of Restaurant and Related Employees, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 88, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Cara Operations Limited, 1985 CanLII 938

J James Nyman

38 cases1981–2016

Bruce Pollock

10 cases1984–2010

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 23, 1985

Board defines bargaining unit by municipality rather than employer division to ensure stability of bargaining rights.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description except whether it should be restricted to the respondent's Architectural and Window Covering Products Division in Mississauga or apply to the City of Mississauga generally.

The Board applied its policy of defining geographic limitations by municipality to ensure stability of bargaining rights.

The Board rejected the respondent's argument to restrict the unit to a specific division, finding it would be a destabilizing factor.

A certificate was issued to the applicant for all employees in the City of Mississauga, with standard exclusions.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 175 v. Hunter Douglas Canada Limited, 1985 CanLII 942

Maureen Farson

4 cases1985–2001

John Meiorin

4 cases1980–1990

David R. Rothwell

2 cases1985–1986

Bernardo Mattacchione

Paula Knopf

OLRB0 cases1984–1997

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 21, 1985

A. Grant

OLRB0 cases1983–1987

Board lacks jurisdiction to enforce its own awards; enforcement must be pursued through the courts.

The respondent employer requested the Ontario Labour Relations Board to enforce a previous award, alleging the applicant union failed to distribute trust monies to employees as ordered.

The union raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the employer's request, ruling that it lacks statutory authority to enforce its own awards.

Under section 44(11) of the Labour Relations Act, enforcement must be pursued through the Supreme Court.

The Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada Local 1 v. The Masonry Contractors Association of Toronto Inc., 1985 CanLII 1074

Werner G. Joch

T. J. Billo

7 cases1985–1999

S. Wahl

9 cases1980–2000

Rick Tackacs

Rick Milne

Les A. Kadar

Ian S. Campbell

19 cases1985–2012

Charles G. Rose

I. M. Stamp

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 15, 1985

Harry Freedman

OLRB0 cases1984–2001

Membership evidence deposited at Post Office on terminal date deemed timely despite next-day postmark.

In an application for certification, the Board had to determine whether membership evidence was filed on or before the terminal date.

The union representative deposited the documents at the Post Office on the terminal date, but after the last dispatch time, resulting in the envelope being date-stamped for the following day.

The Board ruled that depositing the envelope with the postal clerk, who numbered it and placed it in the vault, constituted mailing by registered mail on that date.

Therefore, the evidence was filed on time.

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, Local 128 v. 3-L Filters Limited, 1985 CanLII 914

Mark R. Steffes

D.S. Jovanovic

4 cases1983–1987

Daniel Ublansky

11 cases1981–2005

Amita M. Sud

A. Fantin

N. B. Satterfield

I. M. Stamp

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 7, 1985

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed as barred by a validly executed full and final release.

The complainant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging he was discharged for union activity.

The employer argued the complaint was barred because the complainant had signed a full and final release in exchange for two weeks' pay, negotiated with the assistance of an Employment Standards Officer.

The Board found that the complainant understood he was signing a release of all claims against the employer and that the employer had not taken advantage of its superior bargaining position.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 89(4) of the Labour Relations Act to decline to hear the complaint, and dismissed it.

Mohamed El Sherif v. C. E. Jamieson & Co. (Dominion) Limited, 1985 CanLII 918

R. Rosenblatt, Q. C.

J. Paul Wearing

16 cases1984–2016

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn