H. Peacock

J. A. Rundle

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 30, 1998

Employer permitted to challenge voters list post-vote; proposed bargaining unit excluding maintenance employees found inappropriate.

In an application for certification, the Board held a representation vote but segregated the ballots due to disputes over the bargaining unit description and the voters list.

The applicant union sought to prevent the employer from challenging the inclusion of four employees on the list, arguing it was an attempt at gerrymandering after seeing the vote count.

The Board dismissed this motion, noting that under the vote-based system, parties may adjust their positions prior to the preparation of the Officer's Report.

The Board also ruled that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit, which sought to exclude general labour/maintenance employees, was inappropriate as it would cause undue fragmentation and potentially deny those employees collective representation.

Brewery, General and Professional Workers' Union v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, 1998 CanLII 18416

Stephen Krashinsky

In Private Practice19 cases1980–2014

Jim MacKin non

3 cases1987–2000

E. Dempsey

Andrew Camman

25 cases1990–2026

Russell G. Goodfellow

J. A. Rundle

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 10, 1997

Board refuses to dismiss first contract application despite employer's offer to sign union's proposed agreement.

The union applied for a direction to settle a first collective agreement by arbitration under section 43 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A termination application was also pending.

At the hearing, the employer offered to sign the union's proposed collective agreement and moved to dismiss the first contract application.

The union resisted, arguing the employer's offer was a tactical move to allow the termination application to proceed.

The majority of the Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding that the statutory preconditions for a first contract application were met and that the issue of whether collective bargaining had been unsuccessful required a full evidentiary hearing.

A dissenting Board member would have dismissed the application, finding that the employer's acceptance of the union's offer created a binding contract.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059 v. Ingersoll Plastics Inc., 1997 CanLII 15541

John Brady

2 cases1997–2000

Eric DelJunco

66 cases1984–2019

Celia Harte

2 cases1997–2001

Kevin Whitaker

OLRB0 cases1995–2001

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 1, 1997

Remedial certification granted and inside organizer reinstated after employer threatened plant closure during union campaign.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint after losing a representation vote.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board heard evidence that the employer's plant manager and a labour relations consultant threatened employees with job losses, wage reductions, and plant closure if the union was certified.

The Board found the employer violated sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board granted remedial certification under section 11 and ordered the reinstatement of an inside organizer who had resigned under the reasonable belief that he would be fired for his union activities.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers' Union of Canada (CAW) v. Till-Fab Ltd., 1997 CanLII 15558

Pamela Chapman

OLRB0 cases1994–2012

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 17, 1997

Union's procedural objections dismissed; bargaining rights terminated following successful representation vote.

The applicant applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union sought to dismiss the application, arguing the applicant failed to deliver copies of the Board's Interim Rules, an Information Bulletin, and a blank response form, despite delivering the application itself.

The Board found the issue was res judicata due to a prior decision ordering a representation vote.

Furthermore, the Board noted the union suffered no prejudice.

Since a majority of employees voted against the union, the Board declared the union no longer represented the employees.

Patrick Melville-Laborde v. Brewery. General and Professional Workers' Union, 1997 CanLII 15549

Ted J. Kovacs

12 cases1997–2014

Stephen Krashinsky

In Private Practice19 cases1980–2014

Mary Kay Whitney

John Cox

7 cases1997–2025

Joe Daignault

2 cases1997–2000

Jill Webb

Ernest D. Coetzee

3 cases1997–2016

Andrew Mackenzie

2 cases1995–1997

Russell G. Goodfellow

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 12, 1997

Displacement certification applications and unfair labour practice complaints dismissed for failing to establish improper conduct.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification and section 96 unfair labour practice complaints against the employer and the incumbent union.

At the outset of the hearing, the incumbent union and the employer brought motions to dismiss the applications.

The Board granted the motions, finding that the allegations of improper conduct during the representation vote campaign, even if true, would not support a finding of a breach of the Act or undermine the vote results.

The Board also noted the applicant failed to raise its concerns prior to the counting of the ballots.

The applications and complaints were dismissed.

Canadian Health Care Workers (C.H.C.W.) v. Grand River Hospital Corporation, 1997 CanLII 15490

Elizabeth Keenan

8 cases1988–2012

Laura Trachuk

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 5, 1997

Board certified municipal-wide bargaining unit under the employer's legal name without restricting it to specific divisions.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees of KPM Industries Ltd. in Onaping Falls.

The employer argued the bargaining unit should be limited to two specific divisions currently operating in the municipality, to exclude potential future employees of a third division that performs construction work.

The Board held that the appropriate employer name is the sole legal entity, KPM Industries Ltd., and declined to restrict the bargaining unit to specific divisions, finding no cogent reason to depart from its usual practice of certifying municipal-wide units.

United Steelworkers of America v. KPM Industries Ltd., 1997 CanLII 15503

Walter Thornton

47 cases1986–2001

Paul Dunne

3 cases1997–2000

Mike McCrearv

Justin Diggle

21 cases1997–2018

Gus Arrigo

S. C. Laing

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 2, 1997

Bram Herlich

OLRB0 cases1990–2026

Temporary agency workers found to be employees of the client company for certification purposes.

The applicant union sought certification for an all-employee bargaining unit.

A representation vote was held, and the results hinged on the ballots of a group of workers paid by a temporary employment agency but working at the responding party's premises.

Following the vote, both parties reversed their positions on whether these workers were employees of the responding party.

The Board applied the K Mart criteria and determined that the responding party was the true employer, as it exercised overriding day-to-day control.

The Board refused to allow the responding party to propose a new, separate bargaining unit for the agency workers after the vote, finding the single all-employee unit appropriate.

A certificate was issued.

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Martha's Garden Inc., 1997 CanLII 15497

Laura Trachuk

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 24, 1997

Reconsideration denied; adjudicator's employment discussions with unrelated union did not create reasonable apprehension of bias.

The responding employer requested reconsideration of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that directed a first contract to be settled by arbitration.

The employer alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because the Vice-Chair who authored the decision had engaged in discussions with, and accepted a retainer from, a federal trade union (CALPA) around the time the decision was issued.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the Vice-Chair's relationship with an unrelated trade union operating in a different jurisdiction did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

A dissenting Board Member would have set the matter down for an open, public hearing.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Dover Corporation (Canada) Limited Industrial Division, 1997 CanLII 15595

Laura Trachuk

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 18, 1997

Representation vote directed in certification application; substantive objections deferred to post-vote hearing.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification for a bargaining unit of security guards employed by the responding party.

The responding party and intervenor objected to the application on the grounds that the applicant had recently withdrawn a previous application, and the responding party disputed whether the applicant had sufficient membership evidence.

The majority of the Board directed that a representation vote be held by mail and that the ballots be counted, deferring the substantive objections to a post-vote hearing.

The Board declined to order the responding party to provide employee names and addresses to the applicant at this stage.

One Board member dissented, stating he would have sealed the ballot box until the jurisdictional issues were resolved.

United Steelworkers of America v. North American Security Services Inc., 1997 CanLII 15584

S. Liang

OLRB0 cases1991–1997

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 25, 1997

Employer providing essential support services to physically disabled adults is a hospital under the HLDAA.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether Bellwoods Centre for Community Living Inc. is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

Bellwoods provides support services to physically disabled adults to enable independent living.

Applying the factors from the Red Cross decision, the Board concluded that the services provided are essential to the health and safety of the clients, who are highly dependent on them.

The Board advised the Minister that Bellwoods is an 'other institution' and therefore a 'hospital' under the HLDAA.

Bellwoods Centre for Community Living Inc. v. Service Employees International Union, Local 204, 1997 CanLII 15571

Terry Fitzpatrick

Stewart Saxe

10 cases1988–2001

Stephen Dulong

Jo-Ann Codlin

Craig Morrison

3 cases1997–2023

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 17, 1997

Christopher Albertyn

OLRB0 cases1995–2024

Union certified; employer's request for a second representation vote due to workforce build-up denied.

The applicant union applied for certification and won a representation vote.

The employer argued that a second vote should be ordered under the 'build-up' principle because it was opening a second plant and significantly expanding its full-time workforce.

The Board held that the build-up principle survived the enactment of Bill 7, but found that the anticipated increase in employees did not meet the 50% threshold required to order a new vote, particularly because part-time employees were included in the all-employee bargaining unit.

The Board certified the union, with one member dissenting.

The Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers v. 95467 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. as Pet-Pak Containers, 1997 CanLII 15577

Tony Eichhorn

Steve Lillico

Stephen C. Raymond

6 cases1994–2000

Lilianna Simonetta

Judith McCormack

12 cases1980–2010

John Weatherup

In Private Practice102 cases1984–2025

Howard Goldblatt

Dave Smith

Cindv-Ann Thomas

S. C. Laing

Kevin Whitaker

OLRB0 cases1995–2001

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 21, 1997

OLRB deferred OHSA reprisal complaint to Human Rights Commission as essence was racial discrimination.

The applicant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging reprisals for raising health and safety concerns, which included allegations of a racially poisoned work environment and physical hazards.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board defer to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

The Board found that the essence of the complaint was racial discrimination and harassment, which falls squarely within the specialized jurisdiction of the Commission under the Human Rights Code.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 50(3) of the OHSA to decline to inquire into the matter and dismissed the application.

Selwyn Pieters v. Toronto Board of Education, 1997 CanLII 15578

Timothy W. Sargeant

OLRB0 cases1997–2001

S. C. Laing

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 20, 1997

Board directs representation vote in certification application, deferring employer's argument that application is barred.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding party employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing, arguing that a previous unsuccessful application by the international union within the past year barred this application under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Alternatively, the employer requested no vote be held until the threshold question was decided.

The Board declined to dismiss the application or delay the vote, directing that a representation vote take place and allowing the employer to raise the bar issue later.

A dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pending the determination of the bar issue.

United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1977 v. White Rose Crafts and Nursery Sales Limited, 1997 CanLII 15559

S. C. Laing

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 25, 1997

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRB0 cases1986–1999

Work refusal for fast production line unjustified, but Board substituted lesser disciplinary suspensions.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that the employer imposed two-week suspensions as a reprisal for their work refusal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The workers had refused to work after discovering the production line was running faster than the specified cycle time.

The Board found that the work refusal was not justified under the Act, as the workers did not have a reasonable belief that the increased line speed endangered them.

However, exercising its discretion under section 50(7) of the Act, the Board found the two-week suspensions were not just and reasonable.

The Board substituted lesser penalties of a five-day suspension for one worker and one-day suspensions for the other two.

John Sellers, Mario Romagnuolo, Gerald Pelley and CAW Local 222 v. Robert Taylor, Don Sawyer and General Motors of Canada Limited, 1997 CanLII 15488

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 18, 1997

Christopher Albertyn

OLRB0 cases1995–2024

Termination application directed to be heard together with pending first contract application.

The applicant filed an application for termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board noted that a first contract application brought by the union was already pending.

Pursuant to section 43(23) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board directed that the termination application be considered together with the first contract application by the panel scheduled to hear the latter.

David Pentland v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1059, 1997 CanLII 15507

John L. Stout

10 cases1995–2007

F. C. Hamilton

2 cases1997–1997

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 26, 1997

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; employer's pre-vote communications did not materially misrepresent statutory freeze provisions.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging that the employer distributed a video and letter to employees shortly before a representation vote that materially misrepresented the statutory freeze provisions under section 86 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union also alleged that the employer's statements regarding plant competitiveness were threatening.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that both parties had provided incomplete but not materially false descriptions of the statutory freeze, and that the employer's statements about competitiveness fell within the permissible limits of employer speech.

As the union lost the representation vote, the certification application was dismissed.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175 v. Kraft Canada Inc., 1997 CanLII 15518

Russell G. Goodfellow

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 11, 1997

Application for certification dismissed as untimely due to the prior appointment of a conciliation officer.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The most recent collective agreement between the responding party employer and the intervenor union had expired, and a conciliation officer had been appointed.

Under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the open period for a certification application closes when a conciliation officer is appointed or the agreement expires, whichever is later.

As no subsequent agreement had been entered into since the conciliation officer's appointment, the Board found the application untimely and dismissed it.

Canadian Health Care Workers (C.H.C.W.) v. Trinity Village Care Center, 1997 CanLII 15483

Steven McCormack

5 cases1980–2000

Shaheen Hirani

Suspended Administratively14 cases1997–2022

Robert Wasserman

Not Practising Law4 cases1997–2025

Paul Ratzlaff

Paul Hayward

4 cases1997–2009

Marie Kelly

12 cases1990–2001

Kerry Jameson

Jeff Peltier

David Doorey

7 cases1997–2001

R. W Pirrie

OLRB0 cases1985–1998

Janice Johnston

OLRB0 cases1990–2026

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 10, 1997

Union certified without a vote after employer's refusal to answer store closure questions constituted unlawful interference.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at a retail store.

During the organizing drive, the employer engaged in a campaign that included daily meetings and managers repeatedly questioning employees about the union.

Crucially, management refused to answer employee questions about whether the store would close if the union was successful, which the Board found intentionally fueled employee fears for their job security.

The Board concluded that this conduct violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the resulting representation vote did not reflect the true wishes of the employees.

The Board certified the union pursuant to section 11 of the Act.

United Steelworkers of America v. Wal-Mart Canada, Inc., 1997 CanLII 15529

Kevin Whitaker

OLRB0 cases1995–2001

J. A. Rundle

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

H. Peacock