R. O. MacDowell

I. MacPherson

H. M. Pollit

8 cases1980–1987

D. K. Gray

8 cases1984–1992

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 7, 1984

Concerted refusal to cross a picket line constitutes an unlawful strike despite past employer accommodation.

The Toronto Transit Commission applied for a cease and desist direction, alleging that transit drivers engaged in an unlawful strike by refusing to cross a picket line at an Eaton's store, and that the union encouraged this action.

The union argued that the employer had a 30-year past practice of accommodating drivers who refused to cross picket lines.

The Board held that a concerted refusal to cross a picket line constitutes a strike under the Labour Relations Act, and that past practice or private arrangements cannot override the absolute statutory prohibition on strikes under the T.T.C. Act.

The Board issued declarations of an unlawful strike and cease and desist directions against the employees and the union.

Toronto Transit Commission v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, 1984 CanLII 1018

Wallace Kenny

8 cases1984–2016

Robert Hiscox

John McNamee

9 cases1982–2000

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 29, 1984

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

C. A. Ballentine

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

Employer's refusal to make significant concessions during collective bargaining constituted lawful hard bargaining, not bad faith.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer breached section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to bargain in good faith for a first collective agreement at its Cambridge branch.

The employer insisted on terms similar to an existing agreement at another branch, which largely mirrored its corporate-wide policies for non-unionized employees, and refused to make significant concessions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, holding that the employer's conduct amounted to lawful hard bargaining in pursuit of its own self-interest and legitimate business objectives, rather than a refusal to recognize the union or conclude an agreement.

Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink & Distillery Workers, Local No. 304 v. Canada Trustco Mortgage Company, 1984 CanLII 1106

R. O. MacDowell

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 13, 1984

Nurse clinicians do not exercise managerial functions and are employees under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant hospital applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether 'nurse clinicians' exercise managerial functions under section 1(3)(b) and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board reviewed the duties of nurse clinicians, which primarily involved instruction, orientation, and professional evaluation, and concluded that these functions were not managerial in character.

The Board held that the nurse clinicians are employees within the meaning of the Act and are not excluded from collective bargaining.

Ottawa General Hospital v. Ontario Nurses' Association, 1984 CanLII 1125

T. F. Stone

9 cases1980–1991

R. E. Brown

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 11, 1984

Union certified without a vote; Board refused to exclude commission salesmen or entertain Charter objections.

The applicant union sought certification for full-time and part-time bargaining units at the respondent's retail store.

The employer and union agreed on the bargaining unit descriptions.

A group of employee objectors, representing commission salesmen, argued they should be excluded from the unit because they did not share a community of interest and did not wish to be represented by a union, citing the Charter of Rights freedom of association.

The Board held that excluding the salesmen would cause undue fragmentation and that the Charter did not require altering the appropriate bargaining unit.

The Board also dismissed unproven allegations of union misconduct during the organizing campaign.

As the union demonstrated membership support of over 55%, the Board granted certification without a vote.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL:CIO:CLC: v. Simpsons Limited, 1984 CanLII 1129

Irv Kleiner

8 cases1983–2013

Charlotte Zigler

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 11, 1984

Gordon Donnelly

OLRB0 cases1984–1984

Bruce Lee

OLRB0 cases1984–1984

Complaint of unlawful lockout dismissed as employer's subcontracting decision was a final, economically driven choice.

The union filed a complaint alleging that the employer retirement home threatened and implemented an unlawful lockout by deciding to subcontract all bargaining unit work due to severe financial difficulties.

The employer had experienced escalating operating losses and determined that subcontracting was necessary to reduce labour costs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the employer's decision was a final and irrevocable economic choice rather than a tactic to compel employee concessions or preserve the employment relationship on different terms.

Consequently, the conduct did not meet the statutory definition of a lockout.

Health, Office & Professional Employees, Division of Local 206 v. Preston Springs Gardens Retirement Home, 1984 CanLII 1124

Naomi Duguid

17 cases1981–1986

M. Longworth

3 cases1984–1985

Michelle O'Connor

Michael Gordon

40 cases1980–1991

Don Burshaw II

3 cases1983–1985

Carolyn Shaughnessy

3 cases1983–1985

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 14, 1984

Successor employer under section 63 must retain predecessor's employees in accordance with collective agreement.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent, a successor employer, refused to recognize the union, apply the collective agreement, or retain the predecessor's employees.

The Board held that under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, a successor employer inherits the predecessor's obligations, including the collective agreement.

The Board found that the predecessor's employees could not be terminated without just cause merely because of the impending sale, and the successor was obligated to retain them in accordance with the collective agreement's seniority provisions.

Service Employees International Union, Local 183 v. Daynes Health Care Limited, 1984 CanLII 1003

Paul Cavalluzzo

28 cases1981–2015

James Fyshe

32 cases1981–2011

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 9, 1984

Request for reconsideration dismissed; notice to union was sufficient for employees affected by seniority restoration.

The complainants successfully brought a duty of fair representation complaint against their union, resulting in an order restoring their lost seniority.

A group of employees whose relative seniority was adversely affected by this restoration requested a reconsideration, arguing they were denied natural justice because they did not receive notice of the original hearing.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that the objecting employees were allied in interest with the union regarding the substantive issue.

Notice to the union, as their statutory bargaining agent, was sufficient notice to the employees themselves.

Timothy W. Smith and William Morton v. Toronto Joint Board Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Union Local 141 4J, 1984 CanLII 999

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 9, 1984

Board order filed in Supreme Court for enforcement after employer admitted non-compliance due to insolvency.

The complainant notified the Board that the respondent employer failed to comply with a previous Board order directing payment of compensation.

The Board notified the respondent employer, whose counsel admitted non-compliance due to insolvency.

The Board, satisfied that there was non-compliance, directed that its determination be filed with the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Ontario for enforcement pursuant to section 89(6) of the Labour Relations Act.

William Frederick Burrows v. Lloyd McHugh & Son Limited et al., 1984 CanLII 1009

Seb Englert

M. Patrick Moran

36 cases1982–2011

S. Cooke

R. O. MacDowell

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 18, 1984

Minister has jurisdiction to appoint a section 45 arbitrator despite union's premature contractual arbitration referral.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a single arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had previously initiated the arbitration process under the collective agreement, but the employer argued this referral was premature and subsequently requested a section 45 expedited arbitration.

The Board held that the union's premature referral did not foreclose the employer's timely section 45 request, confirming the Minister's jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator.

The Kitchener-Waterloo Catholic High School Board of Governors v. London & District Service Workers Union, Local 220, 1984 CanLII 1042

Randy Levinson

6 cases1981–1988

Arthur Schelter

2 cases1983–1984

S. Cooke

R. O. MacDowell

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 29, 1984

Employer's request for expedited arbitration under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act was untimely.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a single arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer had requested the appointment after the time limits stipulated in the collective agreement for referring a grievance to arbitration had expired.

The Board held that the time limits in section 45 must be strictly construed and found the employer's referral to be untimely.

Consequently, the Board advised the Minister that he had no authority to appoint an arbitrator.

St. Raphael's Nursing Home (Kitchener) v. London & District Service Workers Union, Local 220, 1984 CanLII 981

Paul Falzone

9 cases1982–1999

C. E. Humphrey

23 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 28, 1984

C. A. Ballentine

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

A timely request for expedited statutory arbitration takes precedence over a collective agreement's arbitration process.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his jurisdiction to appoint a single arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer had requested an expedited arbitration under section 45 after the union had already initiated the tripartite arbitration process under the collective agreement.

The union argued that invoking the contractual process precluded the statutory expedited route.

The Board held that a timely request under section 45 takes precedence over the collective agreement's arbitration provisions, and therefore the Minister had jurisdiction to appoint the single arbitrator.

The City of Mississauga (Transit Department) v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local #1572, 1984 CanLII 969

M. Levinson

3 cases1980–1984

Liana Turrin

2 cases1984–1984

Kevin Corporan

2 cases1984–1988

Ken Ottenbreit

Jim Whyte

4 cases1984–2001

Frank Charron

4 cases1984–2001

Bruce Pollock

10 cases1984–2010

R. O. MacDowell

D. Blair

OLRB0 cases1984–1984

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 20, 1984

Board asserts jurisdiction over statutory freeze complaint during certification raid and grants incumbent union intervener status.

The complainant union filed a complaint alleging the employer breached the statutory freeze under section 79(2) of the Labour Relations Act by altering employee privileges while a certification application was pending.

The employer and the incumbent union (intervener) argued the Board should not inquire into the complaint because there was a subsisting collective agreement, the certification application was untimely, and the matter should be deferred to arbitration.

The Board held that section 79(2) applies even when there is an incumbent union and declined to defer to arbitration, noting the complainant was not a party to the collective agreement.

The Board also reconsidered its initial ruling and granted the intervener status to participate in the proceedings.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Manuel DaSilva Foods Ltd., 1984 CanLII 976

T S. Kelleher

R. C. Filion, Q. C.

4 cases1984–1986

Beth Symes

27 cases1980–2014

S. Cooke

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 26, 1984

I. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1983–1986

Union merger approved and successor rights granted; unanimous member consent not required under the Labour Relations Act.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union (UFCW) applied under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act for a declaration that it was the successor to the Kraus Carpet Employees Association following a merger.

The respondent employers argued the Association lacked the power to merge without unanimous member consent and that the voting procedure was flawed.

A complainant employee also alleged the merger process breached the union's duty of fair representation under section 68.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that unanimous consent was not required for a trade union to merge under the Act, and that the single vote to amend the constitution and approve the merger was sufficient.

The Board declared the UFCW the successor union and dismissed the section 68 complaint.

United Food and Commercial Workers Union v. Waterloo Spinning Mills Ltd., 1984 CanLII 945

R. Willoughby

L. Popovitch

Jack de Klerk

3 cases1984–2014

F. G. Hamilton, Q.C.

7 cases1980–1992

D. Lounds

D. F Grenville

Not Practising Law66 cases1981–2021

Brian Shell

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

A. M. Minsky, Q. C.

8 cases1984–2000

R. O. MacDowell

P.J. O'Keeffe

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 23, 1984

Union failed to establish common practice of separate bargaining for maintenance electricians under section 6(3).

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of maintenance electricians employed by the respondent mining company.

The union argued that the electricians constituted a craft unit deemed appropriate under section 6(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board reviewed extensive evidence of the union's bargaining practices across various industries in Canada and the United States.

The Board found that outside the construction and related industries, the union did not commonly bargain separately and apart for maintenance electricians.

Consequently, the union failed to meet the mandatory criteria of section 6(3) and was not entitled to a separate craft bargaining unit.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1687 v. Kidd Creek Mines Ltd., 1984 CanLII 937

N. Smith

22 cases1984–2026

J. Redshaw

5 cases1980–1985

John Wissent

E. Schroeder

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

A. P Tarasuk

17 cases1984–2000

A. F Amis

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 21, 1984

Union certified; Board affirms construction industry rule counting only employees at work on application date.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The employer argued that employees absent on the application date due to hunting should be included in the bargaining unit count.

The Board rejected this, affirming its long-standing practice of only counting employees actually at work on the application date in the construction industry.

A group of objecting employees filed a petition but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing to provide required evidence of its voluntariness, instead requesting an adjournment.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting the prejudice caused by delay in construction industry certifications, and granted the union's application for certification based on its documentary evidence of membership.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Smiths Construction Company Arnprior Limited, 1984 CanLII 942

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 14, 1984

Union certification application dismissed due to prohibited employer support and inherent conflict of interest.

The applicant union sought certification to represent employees of a non-profit training school.

The evidence revealed that the union and the employer were inextricably intertwined, with the union's president also serving as the president of the employer's board of directors, and the union's president having actively encouraged the employees to join the union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the inherent conflict of interest and the employer's participation in the union's administration violated section 13 of the Labour Relations Act, which prohibits the certification of a trade union that has received employer support.

Seafarers' International Union of Canada v. Seafarers' Training Institute, 1984 CanLII 941

Susan Stewart

4 cases1980–1984

Stephen Bernofsky

In Private Practice18 cases1984–2021

Marion Hallatt

Liz Woods

Judith McCorrnack

Delaine Foster

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 14, 1984

L. Collins

OLRB0 cases1983–1987

J. D. Bell

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

Written settlement of unfair labour practice complaint enforced despite employer's unexpressed expectations regarding employee retention.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer breached a written settlement of an earlier unfair labour practice complaint by failing to pay agreed-upon compensation to three reinstated employees.

The employer argued the settlement was void because the employees resigned shortly after returning to work, which contravened the employer's unexpressed expectation of stability.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the clear, unambiguous terms of a written settlement cannot be repudiated based on unstated expectations or subsequent events not addressed in the agreement.

The Board directed the employer to pay the specified sums.

Ontario Nurses' Association v. Brantwood Manor Nursing Homes Limited, 1984 CanLII 928

John Fedyna

James E. Bowden

15 cases1980–2014

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 12, 1984

Unfair labour practice complaint deferred to arbitration due to substantial overlap with pending grievances.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for consent to prosecute the employer, arising from the reorganization of the employer's business.

The union had also filed grievances under the collective agreement which were proceeding to arbitration.

The Board deferred the unfair labour practice complaint to arbitration, noting the substantial overlap in issues, evidence, and remedies, and retained jurisdiction to ensure the matter proceeds expeditiously.

The Board also adjourned the application for consent to prosecute.

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1854 v. Country Place Nursing Homes Limited, 1984 CanLII 930

F. J. W. Bickford

16 cases1981–1994

R. O. MacDowell