N. B. Satterfield

H.J.F. Ade

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 30, 1982

Certification application dismissed because the union obtained membership support by unlawfully threatening to picket the site.

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

The respondent and interveners alleged that the applicant unlawfully coerced the respondent into hiring two of its members by threatening to picket the construction site, which would likely cause an unlawful strike.

The Board found that the applicant's representative did threaten to picket the site if the respondent did not replace members of another union with its own members.

The Board held that this threat constituted a threat of an unlawful strike under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

Because the employment of the two union members was obtained through this unlawful conduct, the Board refused to recognize them as employees for the purpose of the certification application, resulting in the dismissal of the application due to insufficient membership support.

International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers Local 721 et al. v. Folgor Construction Limited, 1982 CanLII 854

John Orton

1 case1982–1982

J. K. Cameron

2 cases1982–1985

Eva F. Marszewski

1 case1982–1982

B. Chercover

19 cases1980–2000

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 9, 1982

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union's strategic decisions at arbitration were not arbitrary or in bad faith.

The complainant filed a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 by acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, and in bad faith during the arbitration of his discharge grievance.

The complainant had been discharged for refusing to perform a job, citing low back pain.

The union representative decided not to call medical evidence or allow the complainant to be represented by his own counsel at arbitration, opting instead to rely on the complainant's own testimony to convince the arbitrator of his pain.

The Board found that the union representative, an experienced official, had properly and methodically prepared for the arbitration, considered the available medical evidence, and made a strategic decision on how best to present the case.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the complaint.

Eugene Vaillancourt v. International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, U.A.W., Local 222 and General Motors of Canada Limited, 1982 CanLII 834

Mr. Grant

2 cases1982–2022

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 19, 1982

Board dismisses union's request to reconsider certification decision; no denial of natural justice found.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506 requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider its decisions certifying the Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association, Local 172 and dismissing Local 506's subsequent application for certification.

Local 506 argued that the Board committed a jurisdictional error and denied natural justice by refusing to treat its application as having been made on the same date as Local 172's application, which would have resulted in a representation vote.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that it had properly exercised its discretion under the Labour Relations Act and its Rules of Procedure, and that no employees had been denied the right to be heard.

Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association, Local 172 v. Clifford Masonry Limited, 1982 CanLII 1070

James B. Noonan

17 cases1980–2000

B. W. Binning

11 cases1980–2000

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 14, 1981

Board rules landscaping work on construction sites falls within construction industry and its subcontracting may be regulated.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer violated the subcontracting provision of their provincial collective agreement by subcontracting landscaping work to a non-union employer.

The parties submitted an agreed statement of facts to determine whether horticulture work was a lawful subject for bargaining and whether its subcontracting could be regulated by the agreement.

The Board found that the landscaping work fell within the definition of the construction industry and that the horticulture exception in the Act did not exclude such work per se.

The Board concluded that horticulture work is a lawful subject for bargaining and its subcontracting may be lawfully regulated by the collective agreement.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council v. The Jackson-Lewis Company Limited, 1981 CanLII 917

Philip J. Wolfenden

16 cases1980–2011

S. Cooke

OLRB0 cases1981–2025

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 14, 1981

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; employer established discharge was for violating disciplinary rules, not union activity.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer discharged the grievor because of her union activity, contrary to section 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer maintained that the grievor was discharged pursuant to its disciplinary practice after receiving a third written warning for violating published rules.

The Board found that the employer established good cause for the discharge and that there was insufficient evidence to infer the employer had knowledge of the grievor's union activities or acted out of anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed.

United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (UE) v. Speedex Company, Division of Magna International Inc., 1981 CanLII 981

W. J. Hayter

14 cases1981–2000

Paul Singer

O. Hodges

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 9, 1981

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

Medical secretaries with remote access to confidential board minutes are not excluded from the bargaining unit.

The applicant hospital applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether three medical secretaries were employees within the meaning of the Act, arguing they should be excluded due to their confidential capacity in labour relations matters.

The union argued the status of one secretary was already settled in prior negotiations.

The Board dismissed the application regarding the first secretary, finding no material change in duties since the parties agreed to include the position in the bargaining unit.

For all three secretaries, the Board found their access to confidential board of directors' minutes was too remote to constitute a regular and material involvement in labour relations matters.

The Board concluded they were not employed in a confidential capacity and remained in the bargaining unit.

The Wellesley Hospital v. Service Employees' Union, Local 204, 1981 CanLII 1027

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

N. B. Satterfield

D. B. Archer

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 27, 1981

Board directs employer to keep records clerk job in complainant's bargaining unit based on past practice.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint after the employer attempted to transfer a records clerk job, held by a member of the complainant for 23 years, to a different bargaining unit represented by another union.

The Board determined that the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute and applied section 91 of the Labour Relations Act.

Weighing the criteria, particularly the employer's long-standing past practice and the collective bargaining relationship, the Board directed that the work continue to be assigned to the complainant's bargaining unit.

Milk and Bread Drivers, Dairy Employees, Caterers and Allied Employees, Local Union No. 647 v. Silverwood Dairies Limited, 1981 CanLII 972

W. H. Wightman

N. B. Satterfield

H. Simon

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 20, 1981

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; written warning was motivated by employee complaints, not anti-union animus.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by issuing a written warning to an employee due to his union organizing activities.

The employer maintained that the warning was issued in response to complaints from other employees that the grievor was bothering them and disrupting work.

The Board found that the employer's actions, while perhaps an overreaction, were motivated by the employee complaints and not by anti-union animus.

The complaint was dismissed, and the Board declined to award costs against the complainant.

Canadian Textile & Chemical Union v. Albert Sliwinski Ltd. c.o.b. as Avon Sportswear, 1981 CanLII 821

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

R. A. Werry

38 cases1980–1994

N. B. Satterfield

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 10, 1981

Board allows extrinsic evidence to resolve ambiguity of 'job site location' in collective agreement.

In a referral of a construction industry grievance under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, the applicant union alleged that the respondent employer failed to properly pay living allowances under the collective agreement.

During the hearing, the respondent sought to introduce extrinsic evidence, arguing that the phrase 'job site location' in the agreement contained patent and latent ambiguities.

The Board ruled that extrinsic evidence would be allowed and issued this interim decision to explain the nature of the ambiguities, noting that the word 'location' is capable of multiple meanings that must be resolved using all available evidence.

International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95 v. Lewis Insulation Services Inc., 1981 CanLII 936

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 5, 1981

Board grants certification for masonry restoration employees, finding no collective agreement bar from intervener.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent masonry restoration employees of the respondent in the construction industry.

The intervener claimed that a subsisting collective agreement between it and the respondent barred the application.

The Board found that the intervener had acted as though it did not hold bargaining rights for the restoration employees, effectively abandoning any such rights if they existed.

Consequently, the Board held there was no collective agreement bar, found the application timely, and issued certificates to the applicant.

Operative Plasterers' and Cement Masons' International Association, Local 172 v. Clifford Masonry Limited, 1981 CanLII 845

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Mark Conini

N. B. Satterfield

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 29, 1981

Employer bound by provincial collective agreement in the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector.

The applicants referred a grievance to the Board under section 112a of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the respondent violated a collective agreement.

The respondent challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing it was not bound by any collective agreement with the applicants.

The Board found that the respondent had signed a short-form agreement in 1973 that bound it to the provincial agreement.

While the respondent had not assigned its bargaining rights to the employer bargaining agency for all sectors, it was bound by the provincial agreement in respect of the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector by operation of the Act.

The Board ordered the respondent to cease violating the agreement in that sector.

Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen v. Fred Jantz Masonry Construction Company Limited, 1981 CanLII 802

L. Castaldo

3 cases1980–1981

Gary C.C. Walker

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

W. Gibson

OLRB0 cases1980–1990

N. B. Satterfield

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 21, 1981

Interim certification granted for concrete forming employees pending resolution of related employer issues.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for employees engaged in concrete forming construction.

The Board granted an adjournment regarding the related employer and sale of business issues between the two respondents.

However, the Board proceeded with the application concerning Highrise Crane and Rental Limited.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board granted interim certification for a bargaining unit of employees engaged in concrete forming on residential building projects, pending the final determination of the status of Matterhorn Construction.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Matterhorn Construction (Hamilton) Limited, 1981 CanLII 947

Tom Carron

N. B. Satterfield

M.A. Ross

OLRB0 cases1980–1986

J. Wilson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 17, 1981

Employer committed an unfair labour practice by terminating an employee shortly after his reinstatement.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer terminated the grievor's employment because of his known support for the union, contrary to section 58 of the Labour Relations Act.

The grievor had recently been reinstated following a previous Board order finding an earlier termination to be an unfair labour practice.

Shortly after his reinstatement, the grievor was denied a shift bonus and a wage increase, and was ordered to transfer to another branch.

When he refused, he was fired.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge its burden of proving that the termination was not motivated by anti-union considerations.

The Board ordered the employer to reinstate the grievor to his former position on the day shift, grant him a wage increase, and fully compensate him for lost wages with interest.

United Steelworkers of America v. Sling-Choker Manufacturing Limited, 1981 CanLII 979

P. Seville

M. Morgan

J. Craddock

D. Wyatt

C. Paliare

5 cases1981–2023

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 8, 1981

Union certified without vote; employee objections deemed involuntary due to employer's threat of closure.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent's group home.

Although the union filed membership cards for more than 55% of the employees, five employees filed statements of desire opposing the application.

The Board inquired into the voluntariness of these statements.

The Board found that the employer had held a meeting expressing opposition to the union, mentioning potential closure of the home, and shortly thereafter sent termination notices to all employees.

The Board concluded that the employer's actions were capable of unduly influencing the employees, rendering the statements of desire involuntary.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and granted certification.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Renaissance Homes Inc., 1981 CanLII 1043

W. H. Wightman

N. B. Satterfield

M. J. Fenwick

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 25, 1981

Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as union cured delay by requesting conciliation before application.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 51(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration terminating the union's bargaining rights, alleging the union failed to seek to bargain for a period of 60 days.

The parties had met once to commence bargaining, after which 12 weeks elapsed without the union seeking to bargain.

However, the union subsequently applied for conciliation services before the employer filed its termination application.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's renewed interest in pursuing its bargaining rights through the conciliation request cured its earlier lack of diligence, making termination inappropriate.

Mohawk Construction Limited v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, 1981 CanLII 951

W. G. Phelps

8 cases1980–1994

T Bradley

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

N. B. Satterfield

H.J.F. Ade

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 27, 1981

Armoured car employees found not to be guards under section 11; certification granted.

The union applied for certification to represent a unit of vaultmen, messengers, drivers, and guards employed by an armoured car company.

The employer argued that the employees were guards within the meaning of section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, and that the union was ineligible to represent them because it admitted non-guards to membership.

The Board applied the conflict of interest test and found that the employees' duties did not raise a real possibility of a conflict of interest with other employees.

The Board concluded that the employees were not guards within the meaning of section 11 and granted the application for certification.

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Wells Fargo Armcar, Inc., 1981 CanLII 1028

R. Baylum

Naomi Duguid

17 cases1981–1986

J P. Wearing

12 cases1980–1989

N. B. Satterfield

M. J. Fenwick

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 26, 1981

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

Board finds section 55 automatically binds successor employers to collective agreements without general discretion to exempt.

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

The respondent admitted the sale occurred but argued the Board had general discretion under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act to declare it not bound by the agreement.

The Board rejected this argument, finding that section 55 is declaratory in nature and automatically flows bargaining rights through to the successor employer, subject only to specific statutory exceptions.

The Board declared the respondent bound by the collective agreement.

International Woodworkers of America, Local 2-353 v. G.A.C. Industries Ltd., 1981 CanLII 888

W. H. Wightman

O. Hodges

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 17, 1981

Pre-hearing representation vote directed; certification application made on the same day a conciliation officer was appointed is timely.

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

The intervener union argued the application was untimely because it was made on the same day a conciliation officer was appointed.

The Board found the application timely under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, as it was not made after the day the conciliation officer was appointed.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken.

Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers v. The Board of Governors of The Riverdale Hospital, 1981 CanLII 996

G. Weir

2 cases1981–1982

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

N. B. Satterfield

J. Wilson

H. Kobryn