H. Peacock

John Luszka

3 cases1992–2001

Elizabeth McIntyre

27 cases1981–2016

Dennis Burke

2 cases1992–1993

Carol Fleming

Bertha Kovacs

Robert D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1984–1995

H. Peacock

G. 0. Shamanski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 4, 1993

Employer ordered to restore medication administration duties to Registered Nurses under collective agreement protection clause.

The Employer, a home for the aged, decided to assign the administration of medications to Registered Nursing Assistants (RNAs) instead of Registered Nurses (RNs) to reduce costs.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) filed a work assignment complaint, arguing this violated Article 2.02 of their collective agreement, which protected work normally performed by the bargaining unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Employer's past practice of exclusively assigning this work to RNs since 1974 strongly supported ONA's position.

The Board ordered the Employer to cease assigning the disputed work to RNAs and restore it to the RNs.

The Regional Municipality of Sudbury Pioneer Manor - Home for the Aged v. Ontario Nurses' Association and Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 148, 1993 CanLII 8046

T. Shearly

S. Deans

M. Kelly

7 cases1991–2023

D. McRae

B. Sevigny

B. Jones

M. A. Nairn

OLRB0 cases1989–2001

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 30, 1993

OLRB has constitutional jurisdiction over security guards providing services to federal government departments.

The applicant union applied for certification of security guards employed by the responding party.

The responding party argued that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacked constitutional jurisdiction because 90% of its security services were provided to federal government departments and agencies under a detailed federal contract.

The Board held that while the provision of security services may be reasonably incidental to the federal undertakings, it was not integral or essential to their core operations.

Therefore, the employment relationship fell within provincial jurisdiction.

The Board found it had jurisdiction and granted the certification.

United Steelworkers of America v. National Protective Service Company Limited, 1993 CanLII 8038

Gerry Brennan

Debra Coles

Brian P. Smeenk

34 cases1982–2012

W. N. Fraser

OLRB0 cases1988–2000

H. Peacock

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 27, 1993

Board grants interim certification and defines security guard bargaining unit by specific municipalities rather than regions.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of security guards.

The parties disputed the geographic description of the bargaining unit, with the union proposing a unit covering regional municipalities and counties, while the employer proposed a unit limited to specific municipalities.

The Board found the employer's proposed unit appropriate, consistent with its general practice of describing non-construction bargaining units by municipality.

As the union had sufficient membership support regardless of the resolution of remaining disputes over managerial exclusions, the Board granted interim certification and referred the list issues to a Labour Relations Officer.

United Steelworkers of America v. Wackenhut of Canada Limited, 1993 CanLII 8036

R. W Pirrie

OLRB0 cases1985–1998

O. T. Surdykowski

OLRB0 cases1986–1993

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 4, 1993

Joint request for adjournment of expedited hearing granted to allow parties to pursue settlement discussions.

The applicant trade union filed a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act and requested an expedited hearing under section 92.2.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, both parties jointly requested an adjournment sine die to pursue settlement discussions.

The Board granted the adjournment for a maximum period of three months, noting that while the Act emphasizes expedition, the prime objective is the resolution of the dispute.

United Steelworkers of America v. Cooper Industries (Canada) Inc., 1993 CanLII 7824

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 2, 1993

Interim reinstatement granted for two discharged employees pending unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant union sought an interim order reinstating two discharged employees pending the final disposition of an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the interim reinstatement and directed the responding employer to post a notice to employees regarding their rights under the Labour Relations Act.

Formal reasons were to follow.

United Steelworkers of America v. Tate Andale Canada Inc., 1993 CanLII 7825

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 5, 1993

Union certified to represent employees of Ombudsman Ontario after demonstrating over 55 percent membership support.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees of the responding party.

The parties agreed on all matters and waived a formal hearing.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and the proposed bargaining unit to be appropriate.

The Board noted that while students-at-law are not entitled to practice law and may not fall under the professional employee provisions of the Labour Relations Act, a majority of the affected persons wished to be included in the unit regardless.

Finding that more than 55 percent of the employees in the unit were members of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

Office and Professional Employees International Union v. Ombudsman Ontario, 1993 CanLII 7794

Russel Zinn

7 cases1989–2001

M. Rick O'Connor

Donald W. Wilson

2 cases1988–1992

David Jewitt

20 cases1981–2015

W. A. Correll

H. Peacock

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 13, 1992

Related employer and sale of business application dismissed; community centre operated autonomously from municipal funder.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration that the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the Pinecrest-Queensway Health and Community Services constituted a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that there had been a sale of a business under section 64.

The union argued that the Region's funding, provision of personnel, and historical support demonstrated common control or a transfer of social service delivery.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the P-Q Centre operated autonomously under its own Board of Directors and that the Region acted merely as a supportive funder and participating agency, without exercising control or transferring its statutory responsibilities.

Ottawa-Carleton Public Employees Union, Local 503 v. Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, 1992 CanLII 6787

Michael A. Church

51 cases1982–2026

Denis Ellickson

16 cases1992–2016

Louisa M. Davie

OLRB0 cases1988–1996

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 30, 1992

F. B. Reaume

OLRB0 cases1992–1997

Application for certification of an RNA-only bargaining unit dismissed due to concerns over undue fragmentation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit consisting solely of registered and graduate nursing assistants (RNAs) at the respondent hospital.

The hospital opposed the proposed unit, arguing it would cause undue fragmentation and that a broader unit including service or paramedical employees was appropriate.

The Board applied the test from Hospital for Sick Children and found that an RNA-only unit was not appropriate in these circumstances, as it would lead to undue fragmentation and potential labour relations problems, particularly given the overlap in functions and the hospital's existing employee relations structure.

The application was dismissed.

Practical Nurses Federation of Ont. v. Strathroy Middlesex General Hospital, 1992 CanLII 6772

Robert Gloweski

E. L. Stringer

8 cases1982–1997

W. A. Correll

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 6, 1992

Brain Herlich

OLRB0 cases1990–1999

Employer violated statutory freeze by unilaterally changing long-standing commission policy on returns and account corrections.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated the statutory freeze provisions under section 81(1) of the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally changing its policy regarding sales commissions on returns and account corrections.

The employer argued that the change was part of its normal business practice and within its management rights.

The Board applied the 'reasonable expectations' test and found that the complete elimination of commissions in these circumstances, contrary to a policy that had been in place for at least five years, was not within the reasonable expectations of the employees.

The Board declared that the employer violated the Act and ordered compensation for affected bargaining unit members.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL:CIO:CLC v. The Brick Warehouse Corporation, 1992 CanLII 6779

M. G. Mitchnick

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 3, 1992

Certification applications dismissed rather than withdrawn; requests for six-month bar and membership count disclosure denied.

The applicant union sought to withdraw two applications for certification after receiving the employer's list of employees.

The respondent employer objected, requesting that the applications be dismissed, a six-month bar be imposed on future applications, and the union's membership count be disclosed.

The Board dismissed the applications rather than allowing them to be withdrawn, consistent with its practice when an examiner has met with the parties.

However, the Board declined to impose a six-month bar or disclose the membership count, noting that the issue of abuse of process could be addressed if a subsequent application is filed.

Textile Processors, Service Trades, Health Care, Professional and Technical Employees International Union, Local 351 v. The Douglas MacDonald Development Corporation c.o.b. Chimo Inns, 1992 CanLII 6329

James K. Bonus

F. G. Hamilton, Q.C.

7 cases1980–1992

Daniel Ublansky

11 cases1981–2005

Barry (Douglas) Burnell

M. G. Mitchnick

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 29, 1992

G. O. Shamanski

OLRB0 cases1986–1994

Employer breached duty to bargain in good faith by withholding relocation plans; collective agreement applies to new site.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for a declaration of an unlawful lock-out, alleging the employer threatened to move part of its operations to a new location not covered by the collective agreement unless the union agreed to concessions.

The employer subsequently moved the Packaged Gas plant to a new location in Oakville.

The Board found that the scope clause of the existing collective agreement, which covered all employees at the employer's plant in Oakville, applied to the new facility.

Furthermore, the Board held that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose its plans for technological change and relocation during the recent round of collective bargaining when specifically asked by the union.

Energy and Chemical Workers Union, Local 593 v. Union Carbide Canada Limited, 1992 CanLII 6318

M. G. Mitchnick

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 3, 1992

G. O. Shamanski

OLRB0 cases1986–1994

Board orders early disclosure of Employee List to union in pre-hearing vote certification application.

The applicant union applied for certification by way of a pre-hearing vote.

The respondent employer submitted its material, including the Employee List, late on the terminal date.

The applicant requested to review the list before the scheduled meeting with the Board Officer.

The respondent objected, citing concerns about abuse of process because the applicant had previously withdrawn a similar application.

The Board ruled that the Employee List must be disclosed to the applicant prior to the meeting, noting that early disclosure is necessary to avoid unnecessary time and expense, and that concerns about abuse of process can be addressed if a subsequent application is filed.

United Steelworkers of America v. Alros Products Limited c.o.b. as Polytarp Products, 1992 CanLII 6728

M. A. Nairn

OLRB0 cases1989–2001

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 1, 1992

Board denies union's request to reserve post-vote challenges to voters list in certification application.

The applicant union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

A dispute arose regarding the geographic scope of the appropriate bargaining unit and the inclusion of certain employees.

The applicant sought to reserve its right to challenge the eligibility of employees at the respondent's Lepage Court location after the vote was taken.

The Board denied the request, emphasizing that parties must identify their disputes and make challenges prior to the taking of a pre-hearing representation vote to ensure the integrity of the process.

The Board directed that the vote proceed with segregated ballots for the disputed locations and classifications.

United Steelworkers of America v. Alros Products Limited c.o.b. as Polytarp Products, 1992 CanLII 6736

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

H. Peacock

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 24, 1992

Board declined to intervene in procedural dispute over particulars, remitting compliance determination to Labour Relations Officer.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding the employee status of certain persons.

The Board previously directed the applicant to provide additional information before a Labour Relations Officer began an inquiry.

The respondent employer argued the applicant failed to provide the requisite information and sought the Board's intervention to halt the inquiry.

The Board declined to intervene, ruling that under Practice Note No. 4, it is within the Officer's authorization to determine whether the applicant sufficiently complied with the directions.

The Board remitted the matter to the Officer to proceed.

Schneider Office Employees' Association v. J.M. Schneider Inc., 1992 CanLII 6750

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 20, 1992

Brain Herlich

OLRB0 cases1990–1999

Union certification granted for security guards after parties agreed on all matters and waived hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent security guards employed by the respondent.

The parties agreed on all matters in dispute and waived their right to a formal hearing.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

Based on the documentary evidence of membership, the Board was satisfied that more than 55% of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

The Board ordered that a certificate will issue to the applicant.

Canadian Security Union v. Canada Security Corporation, 1992 CanLII 6747

L. Steinberg

46 cases1982–2003

K. Bradley

In Private Practice3 cases1991–2016

Brian T. Daly

17 cases1991–2015

Antin Jaremchuk

Andrew Camman

25 cases1990–2026

R. M. Sloan

OLRB0 cases1986–2000

Nimal V. Dissanayake

OLRB0 cases1987–2007

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 19, 1991

Board allows cross-examination question about witness's vacation companion to test credibility, balancing privacy concerns.

During a hearing for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, a dispute arose over a question posed during cross-examination.

Union counsel asked a witness, the employer's housekeeping supervisor, whether she went on vacation with the owner of the nursing home.

Employer counsel objected on the grounds of witness privacy.

The Board ruled that the question was permissible to test the credibility of the witness's evidence, as both the owner and the supervisor had testified they went their separate ways and did not discuss the dismissed employee.

However, the Board limited the cross-examination, ruling that union counsel must accept the witness's answer and could not pursue the issue further.

The Board also denied the employer's request for an adjournment to seek judicial review, directing counsel to move to another area of cross-examination for the remainder of the day.

London and District Service Workers' Union, Local 220 v. Strathroy Nursing Home Ltd., 1991 CanLII 6157

Paul Robertson

2 cases1991–2002

Paula Turtle

14 cases1987–2009

E. L. Stringer, Q.C.

9 cases1980–1992

C. J. Abbass

37 cases1980–2001

Brando Paris

20 cases1985–2001

K. G. O'Neil

OLRB0 cases1988–1998

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 27, 1991

Board consolidates certification and unfair labour practice proceedings and sets peremptory hearing dates.

The union applied for certification and filed a related section 89 unfair labour practice complaint, seeking to consolidate the two proceedings.

The employer and objecting employees opposed the setting of peremptory hearing dates.

The Board ordered the matters consolidated due to overlapping evidence and set ten peremptory hearing dates to ensure the certification matter was dealt with expeditiously, adjourning the case to a new panel.

United Steelworkers of America v. Conix Canada Inc., 1991 CanLII 6164

Vello W. Medri

Guy W. Giorno

3 cases1991–1991

Barry Roberts

2 cases1991–1997

Paula Knopf

OLRB0 cases1984–2003

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 24, 1991

Grievance for reporting pay dismissed; employer reasonably shut down shift due to severe weather.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by denying reporting pay to afternoon shift employees who were sent home due to severe weather.

The employer had determined that gale-force winds and flying debris created an emergency endangering employee safety, necessitating a shutdown of the shift.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement granted the employer the subjective discretion to determine when an emergency shutdown was necessary to protect life and safety.

The Board concluded the employer's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and was in fact reasonable under the circumstances.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1788 v. Electrical Power Systems Construction Association and Ontario Hydro, 1991 CanLII 6131

Graham Clarke

3 cases1991–2000

Donald Moore

Christopher E. Clermont

Alick Ryder

33 cases1980–2011

W. A. Correll

H. Peacock