N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 14, 1983

M. Eayers

OLRB0 cases1983–1983

B. L. Armstrong

OLRB0 cases1980–1997

Unfair labour practice and bad faith bargaining complaint dismissed due to lack of evidence.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer committed unfair labour practices by altering working conditions, disciplining union supporters, and failing to bargain in good faith during first contract negotiations.

The union claimed the employer retreated from earlier verbal wage offers in its subsequent written proposals.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding insufficient evidence of anti-union animus or unlawful alteration of working conditions.

Regarding the bad faith bargaining claim, the Board found that the union failed to prove the employer had made binding verbal offers from which it later retreated, attributing the misunderstanding to miscommunication and changes in the union's bargaining representatives.

A dissenting member would have found a violation of the duty to bargain in good faith.

Canadian Union of Operating Engineers & General Workers, Local 111 v. M & O Bus Lines (Handicab) Ltd., 1983 CanLII 741

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

W.F. Rutherford

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 7, 1983

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

Union trial board violated the Labour Relations Act by penalizing a member partly for exercising statutory rights.

The complainant alleged that the respondent union's Trial Board violated section 80(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act by finding him guilty of internal union charges and imposing penalties in retaliation for his filing of a financial statement complaint with the Board.

The Board first determined that the Trial Board members were persons acting on behalf of the trade union.

Applying the 'taint theory', the Board found that the Trial Board's decision on one set of charges was improperly influenced by the complainant's exercise of his statutory rights.

The Board ordered the rescission of the conviction, the five-year ban on participation, and the $1,000 fine associated with those charges.

William Egan v. Trial Board of the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1783, 1983 CanLII 987

R. Budd

6 cases1982–1994

James Fyshe

32 cases1981–2011

C. M. McKeown, Q.C.

2 cases1982–1985

Alick Ryder, Q. C.

17 cases1980–1988

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 15, 1982

B. L. Armstrong

OLRB0 cases1980–1997

Sale of business found where subsidiary took over parent's store leases and continued retail food operations.

The applicant union alleged a sale of a business from Steinberg to Yesteryear under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, or alternatively that they were related employers under section 1(4).

Steinberg closed two stores and transferred the leases and some assets to Yesteryear, a wholly owned subsidiary, which reopened them as warehouse-style stores with new employees.

The respondents argued the union was estopped from bringing the application because it had engaged in negotiations for a separate collective agreement with Yesteryear.

The Board found no waiver or estoppel, as the union made no promise not to exercise its statutory rights.

On the merits, the Board found a sale of a business occurred, as Yesteryear occupied the same premises and continued a substantially similar retail food business.

Yesteryear was declared bound by the predecessor's collective agreement.

Commercial Workers Union, Local 486 v. Steinberg Inc., 1982 CanLII 984

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 3, 1982

Concurring Board members urge the abolition of the silent period rule prior to representation votes.

In a concurring opinion to a decision issued August 16, 1982, two Board Members commented on the Board's policy regarding the 'silent period' rule prior to representation votes.

They reviewed the Board's jurisprudence, noting a progressive reluctance to order new votes for technical breaches.

The concurring members argued that the silent period rule is anachronistic, causes unnecessary delay and litigation, and that its utility is outweighed by its inconveniences.

They urged the Board to cease its practice of ordering the imposition of a silent period under section 68(j) of its Rules of Procedure.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 1000A AFL-CIO-CLC v. Keele-Wilson Supermarket Limited, 1982 CanLII 981

W. Gibson

OLRB0 cases1980–1990

N. B. Satterfield

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 24, 1982

Board reconsiders certification due to lack of notice and finds sale of business occurred.

The Board reconsidered its prior decision certifying Local 183 because Local 1190 did not receive notice of the application due to a postal strike.

The Board revoked the original certificate and issued an amended one, recognizing that a collective agreement binding Local 1190 and the employer acted as a partial bar for high-rise residential projects.

The Board also found that a sale of part of a business occurred between Camay Carpentry Limited and J.C. Carpentry, binding the latter to the existing collective agreement.

However, the Board declined to declare the respondents a single employer under section 1(4) of the Act, finding no useful labour relations purpose.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. J.C. Carpentry, 1982 CanLII 994

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 16, 1982

Application for certification dismissed; Board maintains 'primarily engaged' test for beverage-employee craft units.

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

The union argued that its traditional craft unit should include waiters who serve both food and alcoholic beverages, even if they are not primarily engaged in serving alcohol.

The Board rejected this argument, maintaining its long-standing 'primarily engaged' test for defining the limits of the beverage-employee craft unit.

Finding that less than forty-five percent of the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit were members of the applicant, the Board dismissed the application.

International Beverage Dispensers' and Bartenders Union Local 280 v. Movel Restaurants Limited, 1982 CanLII 999

R. C. Sills

2 cases1982–1983

Keith Billings

10 cases1980–2000

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

N. B. Satterfield

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 10, 1982

Employer bound by deemed recognition must enforce union security clause after giving employees notice to join.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial agreement by employing non-union sheet metal workers.

The Board previously found the respondent was bound by the provincial agreement pursuant to the deemed recognition provisions of section 137(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

In this continuation, the Board held that the respondent breached the union security provisions of the agreement.

The Board determined that damages should flow from January 15, 1982, the date the respondent received notice of the grievance.

Regarding the non-union employees, the Board found they were entitled to reasonable notice of their obligation to join the union.

The Board directed the respondent to discharge the employees if they failed to apply for union membership within five days of the decision.

Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' Conference v. Culliton Brothers Limited, 1982 CanLII 990

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 22, 1982

Trainees in a government-funded program performing work functions are employees under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent office and clerical employees of the respondent training centre.

The parties disputed whether five persons participating in a government-funded training program for office skills were employees within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that despite being in a learning situation for a limited term, the persons performed work functions for the respondent, were paid by the respondent, and were subject to statutory deductions.

The Board concluded they were employees and included them in the bargaining unit, ultimately granting the certificate.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Industrial Resource Centre (Windsor/Essex) Inc., 1982 CanLII 1020

W. H. Wightman

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 20, 1982

B. L. Armstrong

OLRB0 cases1980–1997

Board determines bargaining unit composition and orders representation vote for office and clerical employees.

The applicant union applied for certification of an office and clerical bargaining unit.

The parties disputed the inclusion of four employees.

The Board found that a senior data entry operator and a purchasing agent did not exercise managerial functions under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and were included in the unit.

The Board also found that two lab reporters shared a community of interest with the technical unit rather than the office and clerical unit, and excluded them.

A representation vote was ordered.

Service Employees Union, Local 204 v. Extendicare Diagnostic Services, 1982 CanLII 954

R. F. Filion

Martin Levinson

15 cases1980–1987

J. Chetti

Brain Herlich

11 cases1982–1988

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 16, 1982

Board upholds representation vote despite isolated anonymous phone calls during the silent period.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

The respondent employer alleged that the union violated the 72-hour 'silent period' prior to the vote through telephone calls made to employees.

The Board found that while two anonymous calls constituted electioneering, they were isolated incidents not attributable to the union, which had taken reasonable precautions to ensure compliance.

The Board concluded the breaches were not widespread or serious enough to influence the outcome of the vote, declined to direct a new vote, and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local lOOOA AFL-CIO-CLC v. Keele-Wilson Supermarket Limited c.o.b. as Tops Food Market, 1982 CanLII 961

Elizabeth Mclntyre

D. B. Black, Q.C.

S. Cooke

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 11, 1982

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Board finds sale of tavern business occurred and declares successor employer bound by collective agreement.

The applicant union alleged that the respondent was a successor employer following the sale of a tavern business and sought a declaration that the respondent was bound by the existing collective agreement.

The respondent argued that it merely acquired the real property and location, not the business itself, and alternatively sought to terminate bargaining rights under section 63(5) of the Labour Relations Act due to a substantial change in the business's character.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred, as the respondent acquired the real property, chattels, liquor licenses, and continued the same food operation.

The Board also dismissed the respondent's request to terminate bargaining rights, finding that the essential nature of the work—preparing and serving alcoholic beverages—remained unchanged despite the introduction of adult entertainment.

The Board declared the respondent bound by the collective agreement.

International Beverage Dispensers' and Bartenders' Union, Local 280 v. Vivace Tavern Inc., 1982 CanLII 962

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 4, 1982

Certification application dismissed as the only other employee was hired contrary to the collective agreement.

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

The intervener challenged the eligibility of one of the two voters, alleging he was hired contrary to the hiring hall provisions of the applicable provincial collective agreement.

The Board found that the intervener had not waived its right to a hearing on the challenge despite failing to file written representations.

On the merits, the Board held that the challenged voter was employed in violation of the collective agreement and therefore was not an employee in the bargaining unit for the purposes of the application.

As this left only one employee in the unit, the Board found there was no appropriate bargaining unit and dismissed the application.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837 v. Cooper Construction Company Limited, 1982 CanLII 951

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 4, 1982

Reconsideration of certification denied where employer failed to file a timely reply despite notice.

The employer requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decision granting two certificates to the union, seeking to reopen the matter to file a reply and give evidence.

The employer had failed to file a reply or request a hearing prior to the original decision, despite receiving notice and multiple follow-ups from Board staff.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the employer failed to act with due diligence and must accept the consequences of ignoring the express requirements to respond in a timely fashion.

Labourers International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Karvon Construction Limited, 1982 CanLII 955

W.F. Rutherford

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 29, 1982

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Board directed a hearing to receive evidence on whether the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board was functioning.

The complainant filed a work assignment dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

Several respondents alleged that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) because the parties were bound to refer such disputes to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB).

The Sheet Metal Workers and the intervener argued the IJDB had ceased to function.

The Board issued a decision correcting a previous error in identifying the party who submitted a letter from the NLRB regarding the IJDB's status.

The Board directed the Registrar to list the matter for a hearing to receive further evidence and representations on whether the IJDB is operating and how that affects the Board's jurisdiction.

Stoney Creek Mechanical Limited v. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union No. 537, 1982 CanLII 934

William A. Brunton

2 cases1982–2010

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 13, 1982

M. J. Fenwick

OLRB0 cases1980–1982

I. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1982–1987

Representation vote ordered in decertification application; asking employer for lawyer's name did not vitiate voluntariness.

The applicants, employees of Northland Glass and Metal Limited, applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued that the application was instigated by the employer because the lead applicant had asked the employer for the name of a lawyer to assist with the decertification.

The Board found that this single inquiry, standing alone, was insufficient to indicate management influence, especially since the employees had previously considered decertification.

The Board concluded the statement of desire was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the employer involvement sufficient to dismiss the application.

Gilles Mathon and Other Employees of Northland Glass and Metal Limited v. The International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades Local 1904, 1982 CanLII 928

J. Baker

4 cases1982–2023

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

Chris G. Paliare

192 cases1980–2026

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 5, 1982

M. J. Fenwick

OLRB0 cases1980–1982

C. G. Bourne

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

Board lacks jurisdiction over work assignment dispute where collective agreement requires referral to IJDB.

The applicant union filed a complaint regarding a work assignment dispute over the installation of boiler systems at a generating station.

The respondent employer and union argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) of the Labour Relations Act because the parties' collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (IJDB).

The applicant contended the IJDB was no longer functioning.

The Board found that the IJDB procedures were still operative and that the parties were bound by them.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the complaint and terminated the proceedings.

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers, Local 128 v. Ontario Hydro and The International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, Local 736, 1982 CanLII 930

Naomi Duguid

17 cases1981–1986

Jeffrey Sack

In Private Practice11 cases1980–2000

Douglas Wray

10 cases1980–2017

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 29, 1982

M. J. Fenwick

OLRB0 cases1980–1982

E. J. Brady

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

Board declined to revoke union certification despite administrative error, citing competing union's eight-month delay.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1190 applied for certification shortly before the terminal date of a competing application by the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183.

Due to an administrative error, the Board failed to process Local 1190's application and certified Local 183.

Eight months later, Local 1190 requested reconsideration and revocation of Local 183's certificate.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that Local 1190 failed to act with due diligence in pursuing its application, while Local 183 had actively relied on its certificate to seek a collective agreement.

Balancing the interests, the Board concluded that revoking the certificate would cause greater prejudice to Local 183.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Monte Carlo Carpentry, 1982 CanLII 891

M. Zigler

17 cases1980–2013

M. Goose

N. B. Satterfield

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 31, 1982

H.J.F. Ade

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

Related employer declaration denied where non-union company pre-dated unionized company and no erosion of bargaining rights occurred.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that a numbered company and Mandic Bros. constituted one employer, or alternatively that a sale of business occurred under section 63.

The Board dismissed the section 63 application as no evidence was presented.

Regarding section 1(4), while there was some interchange of employees and shared premises, Mandic Bros. had operated as a non-union contractor for over five years before the numbered company was formed and signed a voluntary recognition agreement.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration, finding no erosion of bargaining rights and noting the union could have applied for certification of Mandic Bros.

A dissenting board member would have granted the declaration.

Drywall, Acoustic, Lathing and Insulation Local 675 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. 387098 Ontario Limited and Mandic Bros. Drywall and Const. Ltd., 1982 CanLII 904

N. B. Satterfield

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

H. Kobryn