Who is N. B. Satterfield?

N. B. Satterfield is a vice-chairman at the Ontario Labour Relations Board with 187 decisions on record from 1980 to 1992. Key areas include employment and labour law, administrative law, construction law.

What tribunal does N. B. Satterfield sit on?

N. B. Satterfield sits on the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

What areas of law does N. B. Satterfield decide?

N. B. Satterfield's most common areas include Employment and Labour Law (187 decisions), Administrative Law (64 decisions), Construction Law (19 decisions). N. B. Satterfield has handled 187 decisions across 5 areas.

How many decisions has N. B. Satterfield made?

N. B. Satterfield has 187 decisions on record from 1980 to 1992.

Who frequently appears before N. B. Satterfield?

Representatives who frequently appear before N. B. Satterfield include B. Fishbein, S. B. D. Wahl, Douglas J. Wray.

N. B. Satterfield — Vice-Chairman

OLRBNov 30, 1992

Board finds union did not abandon bargaining rights and owner is an employer bound by collective agreement.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, alleging that the respondent, Shell Canada Limited, violated the subcontracting provisions of the Carpenters Provincial Collective Agreement.

Shell raised two preliminary defences: first, that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights prior to the commencement of province-wide bargaining in 1978; and second, that Shell was acting as an owner and purchaser of construction services, not as an employer in the construction industry.

The Board dismissed both defences, finding that the union had asserted its bargaining rights whenever it had the opportunity, and that Shell exercised sufficient control over the construction project to be considered an employer bound by the collective agreement.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1988 v. Shell Canada Limited, 1992 CanLII 6783

OLRBAug 5, 1992

Purchase of corrugator and lease assignment constituted a sale of part of a business.

The union brought applications alleging that Specialized Packaging Products Ltd. was a successor employer to Paperboard Industries Corporation following the purchase of a corrugator machine and the assignment of a lease for a plant in Holland Landing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the transactions, which included the acquisition of the essential production equipment, the premises, and the hiring of the former plant manager and employees, constituted a sale of part of Paperboard's business under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board declared that Moore Packaging Corporation, into which Specialized had merged, was bound by the collective agreement between the union and Paperboard.

Canadian Paperworkers Union Local 1150 v. Paperboard Industries Corporation, 1992 CanLII 6373

OLRBJun 16, 1992

Related employer declaration granted where two flooring companies operated under common control and direction.

The applicant union sought a declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that R.R. Projects Inc. and Golden Arm Flooring Inc. be treated as one employer.

The Board found that the two companies carried on related activities in the resilient flooring contracting business under common control or direction, noting their interrelationship of operations, common management, and financial control.

The Board granted the declaration to protect the union's bargaining rights and directed Golden Arm Flooring Inc. to pay unsatisfied damages previously awarded against R.R. Projects Inc.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. R. R. Projects Inc., 1992 CanLII 6357

OLRBJun 10, 1992

Interim National Agreement held not dispositive of work assignment complaints without considering past practice.

Five work assignment complaints were brought before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the handling and installation of enclosures for finned tube convectors.

The parties agreed to have the Board first determine the applicability and effect of the 1956 Interim National Agreement between the two unions.

The Board found that while the agreement applied to the work in dispute, it was not dispositive of the complaints because the Sheet Metal Workers had only recently sought to rely on it.

The Board concluded that other criteria, such as area and employer past practice, must also be considered, and directed a further hearing to determine whether the complaints should proceed en bloc or individually.

Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 537 v. Kora Mechanical Inc., 1992 CanLII 6363

OLRBMar 31, 1992

Unqualified employees and those on training courses are excluded from construction industry electrician bargaining unit.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined whether certain individuals should be counted as employees in the proposed bargaining unit of electricians.

The Board found that an employee attending a training program on the application date was not 'at work' in the unit.

The Board also held that three employees performing electrical work on the employer's own premises, who were not qualified journeymen or apprentice electricians under the Trades Qualification Act, should not be included in the unit because they shared no real community of interest with qualified electricians who could lawfully work on construction sites for clients.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Siteco Electric Ltd. and Leo Alarie and Sons Limited, 1992 CanLII 6766

OLRBMar 19, 1992

Union did not breach duty to bargain in good faith by insisting on single province-wide agreement.

The complainant employer association alleged that the respondent union breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 15 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had insisted on a single province-wide collective agreement for the elevator industry and refused to negotiate a separate agreement for non-ICI work, while negotiating separate non-ICI agreements with individual employers during a lawful strike.

The Board found that the union was bargaining within the scope of its rights and did not violate the Act by pressing its position to impasse or by making interim agreements with individual employers.

The complaint was dismissed.

National Elevator and Escalator Association v. International Union of Elevator Constructors, 1992 CanLII 6765

OLRBJan 24, 1992

Union certified without a vote after employer terminated two employees for union organizing activities.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer terminated two employees for their union organizing activities.

The Board found that the employer's owner and his brother made threats of closure and job loss if the union was successful, and subsequently terminated one employee and constructively dismissed another due to anti-union animus.

Given the severity of the employer's breaches of the Labour Relations Act, the Board concluded that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 8 of the Act to certify the union without a vote.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 105 v. Wm. J. Davidson Electric Inc., 1992 CanLII 6801

OLRBJul 30, 1991

Board declares two wholly-owned subsidiaries to be one employer to protect union's bargaining rights.

The union applied for a declaration that STM, All-Way, and the TTC be treated as one employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively that a sale of a business occurred under s. 63.

The Board found that STM and the TTC were not under common control or direction, as the TTC had passed control of the subcontracted station wagon service to STM.

However, the Board declared that All-Way and STM, which were wholly-owned subsidiaries of the same parent corporation, carried on related activities under common control and direction.

The Board exercised its discretion to make a one-employer declaration to protect the union's bargaining rights, which would otherwise be undermined by the transfer of the contracting work from All-Way to STM.

The application regarding the TTC was dismissed.

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. STM Specialized Transit Management Corporation, 1991 CanLII 6142

OLRBJul 29, 1991

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed after complainant union failed to appear at the hearing.

The Energy and Chemical Workers Union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union.

Prior to the hearing, the grievor requested to be substituted as the complainant.

At the hearing, the complainant union failed to appear.

The respondent objected to the grievor's substitution request.

The Board denied the substitution request and dismissed the complaint due to the complainant's failure to appear and prosecute the matter.

Energy and Chemical Workers Union v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Locals 175/633, 1991 CanLII 6173

OLRBJul 24, 1991

Board declares two construction companies a single employer and finds them liable for unpaid commuting allowances.

The union referred a grievance and applied for a related employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against Fox and Spencer.

Fox, a unionized employer, subcontracted ironwork to Spencer, a non-unionized related company, which then employed union members but calculated commuting allowances from a different centre to save costs.

The Board found Fox and Spencer were related employers and declared them a single employer effective from the date the grievance was filed.

The Board held that the employers breached the collective agreement regarding commuting allowances and were liable for damages, rejecting the employers' estoppel defence.

International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 736 v. E. S. Fox Limited, 1991 CanLII 6130

OLRBMay 9, 1991

Union decertification application dismissed as the working foreman's petition did not reflect employees' voluntary wishes.

The applicant, a working foreman, applied under section 57 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector of the construction industry.

The union challenged the applicant's status, arguing he exercised managerial functions.

The Board found the applicant did not exercise managerial functions.

However, the Board dismissed the application because it was not satisfied that the petition supporting the decertification expressed the voluntary wishes of the employees.

Given the applicant's supervisory role over the employees and his remarks about hoping the employer would reimburse his legal fees, the Board concluded that employees might have signed the petition out of concern that refusing to do so would jeopardize their employment.

Angelo Ganassin v. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 1991 CanLII 6061

OLRBMay 9, 1991

Board finds intermingling of employees after sale of union and non-union businesses to new entity; representation vote ordered.

The union applied for a declaration that a sale of a business occurred when a unionized laundry business and a non-unionized laundry business were both sold to a newly incorporated company, which then integrated the operations and employees.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred.

The central issue was whether there was an 'intermingling' of employees under subsection 63(6) of the Labour Relations Act, given that the purchaser was a newly created entity with no pre-existing business.

The Board held that the purchaser carried on the businesses of both predecessor companies and intermingled their employees, satisfying the requirements of subsection 63(6).

Consequently, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine if the employees wished to be represented by the union.

Textile Processors, Service Trades, Health Care Professional & Technical Employees International Union, Local 351 v. R. V. Campbell Commercial Laundry Services (1985) Inc., 1991 CanLII 6074

OLRBMar 8, 1991

A geographic area with no employees on the application date is not an appropriate geographic area for certification.

Two trade unions applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicants proposed bargaining units that included geographic areas where the employer had no employees working at the time of the applications.

The Board held that an 'appropriate geographic area' under subsection 144(1) of the Act must be an area where employees were actually employed on the application date.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining units accordingly and directed that the applications be listed for hearing on the remaining issues.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1081 v. Freure Construction Limited, 1991 CanLII 6082

OLRBFeb 28, 1991

Union certified after Board determines bargaining unit composition by assessing employees' work on application date.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent construction labourers employed by the respondent.

The parties disputed the inclusion of two employees, Lefevre and Grotsch, in the bargaining unit for the purpose of the statutory count.

The Board found that Lefevre did not exercise managerial functions but was not performing bargaining unit work for the majority of his time on the application date, and thus excluded him.

The Board found that Grotsch was performing bargaining unit work for the majority of his time and included him.

Having ascertained the number of employees in the unit and finding the union had the requisite membership support, the Board issued the certificates.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 v. Pre-Eng Contracting Ltd., 1991 CanLII 6120

OLRBFeb 6, 1991

Request to reconsider evidentiary ruling dismissed; Board may admit relevant opinion evidence without expert qualification.

During a hearing to determine whether bridge construction work fell within the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector, the Foundation Company of Canada requested that the Board require the Carpenters' union to qualify its witness as an expert before she could give opinion evidence.

The Board ruled it was unnecessary to do so.

The Foundation Company, supported by other parties, applied for reconsideration of this ruling, arguing the Board erred in law by confusing relevancy with admissibility and failing to exclude unqualified opinion evidence.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, holding that under section 103(2)(c) of the Labour Relations Act, it has the statutory power to admit relevant evidence, including hearsay and opinion evidence, whether or not it is admissible in a court of law.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27 v. Dufferin Construction Company, 1991 CanLII 6112

OLRBDec 20, 1990

Board has jurisdiction under section 124 to arbitrate grievance of shop employee where employer operates in construction industry.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act concerning the suspension of a shop employee.

The respondent employer objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing it was not an employer in the construction industry and the grievance did not relate to construction work.

The Board found that the respondent was an employer in the construction industry because it installed railings in houses under construction.

Following previous Board jurisprudence, the Board held that section 124 is available to any union and employer meeting the statutory definitions in section 117, regardless of whether the specific work underlying the grievance is construction work.

The Board assumed jurisdiction and directed the matter to be listed for continuation.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Ideal Railings Limited, 1990 CanLII 5632

OLRBDec 20, 1990

Board lacks jurisdiction under s. 91(1) over a subcontracting grievance that does not directly demand a work assignment.

The complainant, a manufacturer of diffusers, brought a complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act alleging a work assignment dispute.

The respondent union had filed a grievance against a contractor, Megatech, alleging a violation of a subcontracting clause for purchasing diffusers from the complainant.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction under subsection 91(1) to entertain the complaint because the respondent union did not require the complainant to assign the work to its members, nor did it use Megatech as an agent to do so.

The complaint was dismissed.

E. H. Price Limited v. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union No. 47, 1990 CanLII 5626

OLRBNov 19, 1990

Board directs representation vote for termination of non-ICI construction bargaining rights.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights for employees of the intervener employer.

The Board determined that the application could only affect bargaining rights outside the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, as no employees were working in the ICI sector on the application date.

The Board also rejected the union's argument that certain employees should be excluded from the unit because they were allegedly recalled from layoff contrary to the collective agreement, finding no evidence of employer manipulation.

Concluding that at least 45 per cent of the employees had voluntarily signified they no longer wished to be represented by the union, the Board directed a representation vote.

Ubaldo Marcheschi v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, 1990 CanLII 5761

OLRBNov 1, 1990

Transfer of assets and principal's expertise to parallel electrical contracting business constituted a sale of business.

The applicant union sought declarations that Duplex Electrical Ltd. was a successor employer to Deluxe Electrical Contractor Ltd. under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively, that they were related employers under subsection 1(4).

Deluxe, a unionized electrical contractor, ceased operations and transferred its tangible assets and the services of its principal to Duplex, a non-unionized parallel business.

The Board found that the transfer of assets and the principal's expertise in a bid-oriented market constituted a sale of a business under section 63.

Consequently, Duplex was bound by the collective agreement, and the subsection 1(4) application was dismissed as unnecessary.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 v. Deluxe Electrical Contractor Ltd., 1990 CanLII 5755

OLRBSep 27, 1990

Grievance dismissed; collective agreement's 'shop and field sketches' clause does not cover preparation of interference drawings.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance alleging that the respondent employer violated the provincial collective agreement by using non-union personnel to prepare interference drawings.

The union argued that interference drawings fell within the agreement's coverage of 'shop and field sketches' or, alternatively, its basket clause for 'all other work included in the jurisdictional claims' of the union.

The Board found a latent ambiguity in the agreement and admitted extrinsic evidence of past practice and negotiating history.

The Board concluded that the parties had never agreed to include interference drawings in the 'shop and field sketches' clause, and that the basket clause only covered work similar in nature to the specifically enumerated work.

The grievance was dismissed.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1988 v. Shell Canada Limited, 1992 CanLII 6783

Canadian Paperworkers Union Local 1150 v. Paperboard Industries Corporation, 1992 CanLII 6373

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. R. R. Projects Inc., 1992 CanLII 6357

Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 537 v. Kora Mechanical Inc., 1992 CanLII 6363

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Siteco Electric Ltd. and Leo Alarie and Sons Limited, 1992 CanLII 6766

National Elevator and Escalator Association v. International Union of Elevator Constructors, 1992 CanLII 6765

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 105 v. Wm. J. Davidson Electric Inc., 1992 CanLII 6801

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. STM Specialized Transit Management Corporation, 1991 CanLII 6142

Energy and Chemical Workers Union v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Locals 175/633, 1991 CanLII 6173

International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 736 v. E. S. Fox Limited, 1991 CanLII 6130

Angelo Ganassin v. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 1991 CanLII 6061

Textile Processors, Service Trades, Health Care Professional & Technical Employees International Union, Local 351 v. R. V. Campbell Commercial Laundry Services (1985) Inc., 1991 CanLII 6074

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1081 v. Freure Construction Limited, 1991 CanLII 6082

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 v. Pre-Eng Contracting Ltd., 1991 CanLII 6120

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 27 v. Dufferin Construction Company, 1991 CanLII 6112

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Ideal Railings Limited, 1990 CanLII 5632

E. H. Price Limited v. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union No. 47, 1990 CanLII 5626

Ubaldo Marcheschi v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, 1990 CanLII 5761

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 v. Deluxe Electrical Contractor Ltd., 1990 CanLII 5755

Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 47 v. Robert Laframboise Mechanical Limited, 1990 CanLII 5784

br the applicant

for 584317 Ontario Limited

for Acco Canadian Material Handling, a Division of Babcock Industries Canada Inc.

for Armbro Materials & Construction Ltd.

for Bird Construction Company Limited

for Brad Cobean

for Canadian Automatic Sprinkler Association

for Canadian Paperworkers Union Local 1150

for Carpenters Employer Bargaining Agency

for Catalytic Maintenance Inc.

for Cencan Concrete & Tile Limited

for Christian Labour Association of Canada

for C & M Construction (Kingston) Ltd.; and Inducon Construction (Northern) Limited

for Concept Electric Inc.

for David Davies, George Warnock, John Brennan, Mike Young and Brian Schade, a group of employees of the respondent's Sheet Metal Division

for Deluxe Electrical Contractor Ltd.

for Donald F. Foley Limited

for Dufferin Construction Company

for Duplex Electrical Ltd.

for Dutch Boy Food Markets, a Division of Oshawa Holdings Limited

for E. H. Price Limited

for Elgin Construction Company Limited

for Emico Contracting Inc.

for Energy and Chemical Workers Union, Local 593

for E. S. Fox Limited

for Frankfurt Investments Limited; and Landford Developments Limited

for General Motors of Canada Limited

for Giffin Sheet Metals Limited

for H. G. Susgin Construction Ltd.

for himself

for International Association of Bridge, Structural & Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 721

for International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95

for International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1149

for intervener #1

for intervener #2

for intervener #3

for intervener #4

for interveners #1 and #2

for Ironworkers District Council of Ontario and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 700

for Iron Workers Local 736

for Kent County Contractors, a Division of 504961 Ontario Limited

for Kent County Contractors, a Division of 504961 Ontario Limited and Elgin Construction Company Limited

for Kingston Sand & Gravel Ltd., Kingston Aggregates, Maceron Limited and 429185 Ontario Limited

for Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1081

for Labourer's International Union of North America, Local 183

for Labourers' International Union of North America Local 183

for Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183

for Labourers International Union of North America, Local 183; Teamsters Local Union 230; and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793

for Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506

for Lakeview Estates Ltd.

for Local 89, Canadian Paperworkers Union

for Manacon Construction Limited, DAngelo Plastering Company Limited and Leader Structures (Ontario) 1980 Limited

for Mandic Bros. Drywall and Const. Ltd.

for McLean-Peister Ltd.

for Metropolitan Toronto Apartment Builders Association

for Miracle Food Mart, a Division of Steinberg Inc.

for Moore Packaging Corporation Ltd.

for Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local 473

for Ontario Concrete and Drain Contractors Association

for Ontario Hydro