Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 9, 1995

Application alleging bad faith bargaining dismissed; employer entitled to withdraw wage offer due to changed financial circumstances.

The applicant union alleged that the responding municipality violated the duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing a wage offer and refusing to negotiate retroactive wage increases.

The employer argued that its actions were justified by the financial impact of the Expenditure Reduction Program and the Social Contract Act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the employer recognized the union, was prepared to enter into a collective agreement, and was entitled to withdraw its wage proposal due to changed financial circumstances.

Canadian Union of Public Employees - Local 87 (Inside Unit) v. The Corporation of The City of Thunder Bay, 1995 CanLII 10025

Yves Fricot

2 cases1995–2000

Derek L. Rogers

13 cases1980–2012

R. M. Sloan

OLRB0 cases1986–2000

Laura Trachuk

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 28, 1995

Board finds lease of closed timber mill constitutes sale of part of a business.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the responding party was a successor employer under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The responding party had leased the premises and equipment of a former timber mill from the predecessor employer, which had been closed for approximately two years.

The responding party argued it was a research operation, not a production operation like the predecessor.

The majority of the Board found that the responding party had acquired and revived part of the predecessor's business, as it used the same premises and machinery to produce similar wood products.

The Board declared that the union's bargaining rights continued with the responding party.

One Board member dissented, arguing there was no existing business to sell.

IWA Canada, Local 2693 v. Shin Ho Canada Ltd., 1995 CanLII 9936

W. J. Hayter

14 cases1981–2000

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 26, 1995

Employer committed unfair labour practice by manufacturing probationary period to terminate union supporter.

The applicant union alleged that the responding party employer violated the Labour Relations Act by terminating the employment of a known union supporter.

The employer claimed the employee was terminated at the end of a six-month probationary period due to poor performance.

The Board found that the employee was not subject to a six-month probationary period and that the employer had manufactured this excuse to terminate her after learning of the union's certification application.

The Board concluded that the termination was motivated by anti-union animus and ordered the employee reinstated with compensation.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd., 1995 CanLII 9937

R. M. Sloan

OLRB0 cases1986–2000

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 30, 1995

Karen Davies

OLRB0 cases1995–1995

Unlicensed biomedical engineers are not considered engineers under section 6(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

In an application for certification, the employer argued that two biomedical engineers should be excluded from the bargaining unit pursuant to section 6(4) of the Labour Relations Act, despite not holding licences under the Professional Engineers Act.

The employer contended that 1993 amendments to the Labour Relations Act broadened the category of persons considered engineers.

The majority of the Board rejected this argument, holding that the historical requirement for an individual to be a licensed engineer in Ontario remains applicable.

As the individuals were unlicensed, they were not engineers for the purposes of section 6(4) and were not excluded from the bargaining unit.

A dissenting opinion argued that the statutory amendments removed the strict licensing requirement.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Oshawa General Hospital, 1995 CanLII 9976

T. J. Billo

7 cases1985–1999

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 9, 1995

Union breached duty of fair representation by arbitrarily failing to investigate discharge grievance and denying applicant participation.

The applicant, a meat cutter discharged after a workplace altercation, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union.

He alleged the union acted arbitrarily by failing to adequately investigate his claim that he was provoked and by refusing to allow him to attend the union meeting where the decision not to arbitrate his grievance was made.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union acted arbitrarily by failing to consider a significant aspect of the applicant's defence, allowing the complainant in the altercation to participate in the decision-making meeting, and failing to provide a satisfactory explanation for not proceeding to arbitration.

The Board ordered the union to refer the grievance to arbitration.

Ivan Cvicek v. Schneider Employees Association, 1995 CanLII 10055

K. R. Valin

9 cases1983–1996

James Fyshe

32 cases1981–2011

W. A. Correll

OLRB0 cases1986–1995

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 20, 1994

H. Peacock

OLRB0 cases1987–2001

Laid-off employee without recall rights cannot vote in strike vote; replacement worker complaint dismissed.

The union alleged that the employer violated the statutory freeze under the Labour Relations Act by failing to recall a laid-off employee before hiring summer students.

The union also alleged the employer unlawfully used replacement workers during a strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the statutory freeze complaint, finding the employer's hiring of students was consistent with its past practice.

The Board also held that the laid-off employee, who had no contractual recall rights, lacked a sufficient connection to the workplace to participate in the strike vote.

Consequently, the union failed to achieve the 60% support required to trigger the statutory prohibition on replacement workers, and that application was also dismissed.

IWA-Canada, Local 1-2693 v. Goulard Lumber (1971) Limited, 1994 CanLII 10004

S. Eadie

R. Budd

6 cases1982–1994

M. Wright

5 cases1994–2022

M. Roman

L. Morris

J. Villanueva

D. Abuan

C. McQuarrie

C. Hoover

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 13, 1994

E. G. Theobald

OLRB0 cases1983–1995

Application dismissed; hospital's implementation of new benefits plan and resulting premium increase did not violate statutory freeze.

The union filed an application alleging the hospital violated the statutory freeze and discriminated against union members by implementing a new flexible benefits plan for non-unionized employees, which resulted in union members being placed in a separate group for long-term disability (LTD) benefits and facing higher premiums.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the separation of groups and premium increases were consistent with past practice and the reasonable expectations of employees.

The Board also found no evidence of anti-union animus, concluding the hospital's actions were motivated by legitimate business reasons.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2816 v. The Hospital for Sick Children, 1994 CanLII 9926

Steve Cork

2 cases1994–1995

Mark J. Lewis

20 cases1994–2001

Joseph Liberman

Suspended Administratively53 cases1980–2001

H. Desai

2 cases1994–1994

Doug Dunsmuir

2 cases1994–1995

Dave Chondon

2 cases1992–1994

Brando Paris

20 cases1985–2001

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 26, 1994

C. McDonald

OLRB0 cases1987–1998

Union certified without a vote after employer's allegations of intimidation during organizing drive were dismissed.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees at Royalguard Vinyl Co. The company and an intervening employee alleged that union organizers used threats and intimidation to coerce employees into signing membership cards.

After a 40-day hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board (majority) found the company's witnesses lacked credibility and that the allegations of threats were unsubstantiated.

The Board applied the collateral fact rule to exclude certain cross-examination questions aimed at impeaching a union witness.

Finding the union's membership evidence reliable and demonstrating support of more than 55% of the bargaining unit, the Board certified the union without a representation vote.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that the union's witnesses lacked credibility and a representation vote should have been ordered.

United Steelworkers of America v. Royalguard Vinyl Co., 1994 CanLII 9875

Daniel Ublansky

11 cases1981–2005

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 18, 1994

Employer committed unlawful reprisal by suspending worker who refused to wear uniform tie tightly due to medical condition.

The applicant, a cleaner with a thyroid condition, was suspended for refusing to wear her uniform bow-tie done up to the second button, as it aggravated her condition.

She wore it at the third button instead.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that her refusal to wear the clothing in a manner she reasonably believed would endanger her health constituted an attempt to enforce the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board held that the employer's suspensions amounted to unlawful reprisals under section 50(1) of the Act, and ordered her reinstated with full compensation and permitted to wear the tie at the third button.

Maria Raposo v. Hurley Corporation, 1994 CanLII 9874

Mark Lewis

17 cases1991–2014

Joseph Liberman

Suspended Administratively53 cases1980–2001

Brando Paris

20 cases1985–2001

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 10, 1994

C. McDonald

OLRB0 cases1987–1998

Employer violated statutory freeze and committed unfair labour practices by installing video surveillance during union organizing.

The union applied for certification and subsequently, the employer installed video surveillance cameras in the workplace following damage to a machine.

The union alleged this violated the statutory freeze and other provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the installation of cameras altered a working condition or privilege, violating the statutory freeze under section 81(2).

The Board also found the installation was an unusual and extreme reaction motivated in part by anti-union animus, violating sections 65, 67, 71, and 82(1) of the Act.

The employer was ordered to remove the cameras.

United Steelworkers of America v. Royalguard Vinyl Co., 1994 CanLII 9815

Stephen Bird

Retired25 cases1993–2025

Robert A. Centa

51 cases1993–2021

Michael Church

12 cases1986–2012

W. A. Correll

OLRB0 cases1986–1995

R. R. Montague

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 29, 1993

Union certified without a vote after employer terminated organizers and interfered with organizing campaign.

The union applied for certification and alleged unfair labour practices by the employer, a university students' association.

The employer terminated two employees who were key union organizers and engaged in a pattern of harassment and intimidation during the organizing campaign.

The Board found that the employer violated sections 65, 67, and 71 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained due to the employer's contraventions, the Board exercised its discretion under section 9.2 of the Act to certify the union without a vote.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Carleton University Students' Association Inc., 1993 CanLII 7915

Rene Brixhe

2 cases1988–1993

Jim Fyshe

8 cases1991–2001

C. J. Abbass

37 cases1980–2001

Brian P. Smeenk

34 cases1982–2012

W. N. Fraser

OLRB0 cases1988–2000

Laura Trachuk