R. O. MacDowell

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

W.F. Rutherford

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 27, 1981

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed where union reasonably relied on legal advice not to arbitrate.

The complainant, an employee of the Ironworkers union, was discharged after 27 years of service.

She filed a grievance, but her bargaining agent, the OPEIU, declined to take it to arbitration.

The OPEIU relied on legal advice indicating that because the collective agreement had expired three years prior, an arbitrator would have no jurisdiction to hear the grievance.

The complainant alleged that the OPEIU breached its duty of fair representation and its duty to bargain in good faith.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of bad faith, discrimination, or arbitrary conduct, and concluding that the union acted reasonably in relying on correct legal advice.

Betty Lavoie v. Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 343, 1981 CanLII 826

Mary Cornish

53 cases1981–2022

David L. Wakely

R. O. MacDowell

J. A. Ronson

B. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 6, 1981

Transient burlesque entertainers found to be independent contractors, not employees, for union certification purposes.

The applicant union sought certification to represent burlesque entertainers working at various taverns.

The central issue was whether the dancers were employees, dependent contractors, or independent contractors.

The Board applied common law tests, including the control test, the fourfold test, and the organization test, and reviewed extensive jurisprudence from other jurisdictions regarding entertainers.

The Board concluded that the transient dancers were self-employed independent contractors, as they controlled their own acts, were not integrated into the taverns' organizations, and were not economically dependent on any single tavern.

However, two 'house dancers' at the Colonial Tavern were found to be employees due to their stable relationship and economic dependence.

The applications respecting the other taverns were dismissed.

Canadian Labour Congress, Chartered Local Union No. 1689 (Canadian Association of Burlesque Entertainers) v. Algonquin Tavern, 1981 CanLII 812

M. A. Church

9 cases1981–1990

A. Craig

4 cases1980–1997

R. O. MacDowell

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 29, 1981

Related employer declaration denied where union sought to use it as a substitute for certification.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that two companies, Bramalea and Pinehurst, were one employer.

The companies were under common control and direction, with Bramalea operating as a unionized installation subcontractor and Pinehurst operating as a non-union woodworking shop and installation business.

The Board found that the statutory preconditions for a declaration were met.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to make the declaration, finding that the union was attempting to use section 1(4) as a substitute for certification to sweep a large group of non-union employees into the bargaining unit without demonstrating their support.

The application was dismissed.

Carpenters' District Council of Toronto and Vicinity v. Bramalea Carpentry Associates, 1981 CanLII 828

W. I. McNaughton

5 cases1981–1999

Roy Collins

M. A. Church

9 cases1981–1990

L. M. Fourney

K. Smith

5 cases1981–2022

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 28, 1981

Concerted refusal to work voluntary overtime constitutes an unlawful strike; cease and desist order issued.

The applicant employer filed a complaint alleging that its employees engaged in an unlawful strike by concertedly refusing to work overtime.

The employees, who worked in a continuous production process, had become frustrated with a reduction in staffing and an increased workload.

They collectively decided to refuse all overtime work, despite a collective agreement provision making overtime voluntary.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a concerted refusal to work voluntary overtime constitutes a strike under the Labour Relations Act.

Finding that the employees' actions were an unlawful strike during the term of a collective agreement, the Board exercised its discretion to issue a declaration and a cease and desist order.

B.C.L. Canada Inc. v. Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers' Union, Local 1332, 1981 CanLII 822

M. F. O'Toole

George Surdykowski

4 cases1980–1986

F. Shilton-Lennon

Beth Symes

27 cases1980–2014

W.F. Rutherford

R. O. MacDowell

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 17, 1981

Board finds unlawful layoffs during competing union drives but orders new vote rather than automatic certification.

The Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union and the International Ladies Garment Workers Union both conducted organizing campaigns at the respondent's plant.

The respondent laid off four key union supporters.

The Amalgamated applied for certification and both unions filed unfair labour practice complaints.

The Board found that the layoffs were unlawfully motivated by anti-union animus.

However, the Board declined to grant certification without a vote under section 7a, reasoning that both unions had been equally damaged and had competing claims to employee allegiance.

Instead, the Board ordered extensive remedial measures, including reinstatement with compensation, a posting and mailing of notices, union access to the plant, and a new representation vote.

Amalgamated Clothing and Textile Workers Union v. Chandelle Fashions Ltd., 1981 CanLII 3399

R. O. MacDowell

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

B. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 21, 1981

Board declares related companies one employer and orders reinstatement of employee discharged for union activity.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that an employee was discharged for trade union activity, and a related employer application seeking a declaration that Contempoform Incorporated and CTF Construction Ltd. are one employer.

The Board found that the employee was unlawfully discharged for asserting his rights under the collective agreement and ordered his reinstatement with compensation.

The Board also declared the corporate entities to be one employer bound by the shop agreement, finding they were functionally interrelated and under common control.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2679 v. Contempoform Incorporated, 1981 CanLII 850

R. O. MacDowell

James A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–1995

B. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 15, 1981

Reconsideration denied; employer's conflict of interest allegation regarding former Board employee dismissed as untimely and unfounded.

The respondent employer sought reconsideration of a previous Board decision ordering it to compensate three employees for unlawful discharge.

The employer argued it was prejudiced because a former articling student of the Board subsequently represented the union at the compensation hearing.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no evidence of prejudice, noting the employer failed to raise the issue at the hearing, and observing that the employer was attempting to delay its legal obligations.

The Board directed that its compensation order be filed in the Supreme Court for enforcement.

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local Union No. 880 v. Russell MacVicar Limited, 1981 CanLII 967

Win. McPhee

J. Sotos

J. R. Wright

J. B. Noonan

R. O. MacDowell

J. A. Ronson

B. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 8, 1981

Union certified without a vote after Board accepts voluntary revocations of a petition opposing certification.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and filed documentary evidence of membership for approximately 77% of the employees in the bargaining unit.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification, which included signatures of six employees who had previously signed union membership cards.

Subsequently, all six of these employees signed a revocation document reaffirming their support for the union.

The Board assessed the voluntariness of the petition and the revocation document.

Finding the revocation document to be a bona fide statement of the employees' wishes, the Board accepted it, leaving the union with more than 55% support.

The Board issued a certificate to the applicant without ordering a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, arguing that a representation vote should have been ordered due to inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the voluntariness of the revocations.

Teamsters Local Union. 647 v. Frito-Lay Canada Ltd., 1981 CanLII 803

W. Herridge

2 cases1981–1981

H. Caley

5 cases1980–1982

R. O. MacDowell

M. J. Fenwick

H.J.F. Ade

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 4, 1981

Sale of part of a business found where new meat distribution house continued predecessor's operations.

The applicant union brought an application under section 55 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that a sale of a business occurred between Vaunclair Purveyors and Vaunclair Meats, and that the latter was bound by the existing collective agreement.

Vaunclair Purveyors had shut down its meat processing operations, and its principals subsequently incorporated Vaunclair Meats, which operated as a distribution house from the same location, serving many of the same customers with some of the same employees and assets.

The Board found that while the new operation was smaller and functioned differently, it constituted a continuation of a severable part of the predecessor's business.

The Board concluded there was a sale of part of the business and that the union's bargaining rights continued.

United Food & Commercial Workers' International Union, Local 633 v. Vaunclair Meats Limited, 1981 CanLII 1020

R. O. MacDowell

O. Hodges

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 21, 1981

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

Board determines employee status of three municipal workers, finding two exercise managerial functions.

The applicant union applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine whether three municipal employees exercised managerial functions and were thus excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Board reviewed the duties of the water supervisor, arena manager, and building inspector/zoning administrator.

The Board found that the water supervisor's supervisory duties were incidental to his physical work and he did not exercise managerial functions.

However, the arena manager and the building inspector exercised sufficient independent decision-making authority over hiring, scheduling, and discipline to be considered managerial.

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 1007 v. Corporation of the Township of West Lincoln, 1981 CanLII 860

J. A. Roffey

9 cases1980–1992

H. Caley

5 cases1980–1982

D. Churchill-Smith, Q.C.

R. O. MacDowell

C. G. Bourne

B. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 27, 1981

A & P and its pharmacy subsidiary declared one employer; union's application not barred by delay.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that A & P and A & P Drug Mart Limited are one employer.

The union represented employees in A & P's retail stores, but the company operated its pharmacies through a separate corporate entity, paying pharmacy assistants lower wages.

The respondents argued the union delayed in bringing the application.

The Board found the two entities were engaged in related activities under common control and direction.

The Board also held the union exercised due diligence, as it filed grievances immediately upon learning of the wage discrepancy and only later discovered the separate corporate identity.

The Board declared the entities to be one employer.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local Unions 175 and 633 v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Company of Canada Limited, 1981 CanLII 994

M. D. Contini

5 cases1981–2000

L. A. MacLean

20 cases1980–1993

E. G. Posen

8 cases1981–1987

C. Gyles

2 cases1981–1982

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 12, 1981

Motion for production of archived and potentially lost union notes dismissed due to unreasonableness and delay.

During an ongoing hearing for a duty of fair representation complaint, the applicant moved for the production of notes made by a union official during the preparation of the applicant's arbitration case several years prior.

The union official testified that the notes were either lost, destroyed, or buried in hundreds of boxes sent to the Federal Archives.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding it unreasonable to direct the union to undertake a massive search for un-subpoenaed documents that may not exist or be relevant, especially given the applicant's delay in filing the complaint.

Stanley Dwyer v. United Automobile Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America U.A.W. International Union, 1981 CanLII 1047

Stephen Grant

S. Gilbert Cragg

2 cases1980–1981

Raj Anand

54 cases1981–2017

Peter Hitchen

2 cases1981–1982

John Stefanini

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

Gary Walker

3 cases1981–1982

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

Alan Franklin

2 cases1981–1981

R. O. MacDowell

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

N. A. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1991

H.J.F. Ade

D. E. Franks

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 2, 1981

Board issues certification, finding new statutory provisions preclude historical distinction between labourers' locals' bargaining units.

The applicant trade union, Local 183, applied for certification for a unit of construction labourers.

The Board considered whether to continue its historical policy of distinguishing between the bargaining units granted to Local 183 and Local 506 in the Toronto area, given the new section 131a of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that section 131a contains mandatory directives regarding the appropriate bargaining unit, which precludes the Board from continuing the previous distinction or making sectoral determinations as a condition precedent to certification.

The Board found that both locals are entitled to apply under either subsection 1 or 3 of section 131a, and issued certificates to the applicant for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector province-wide, and for all other sectors in the local geographic area.

Labourers' International Union of North America - Local 183 v. Pelar Construction Ltd., 1981 CanLII 883

W.F. Rutherford

R. O. MacDowell

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 20, 1981

Board lacks jurisdiction to hear teacher's duty of fair representation complaint against union.

The applicant, a secondary school teacher, filed a complaint alleging that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 60 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to proceed to arbitration with her grievance.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application on preliminary jurisdictional grounds.

The Board held that the Labour Relations Act does not apply to teachers, and the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act neither imposes a statutory duty of fair representation nor grants the Board jurisdiction to inquire into such complaints.

Florence M. Casey v. Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation, 1981 CanLII 878

R. O. MacDowell

H. Simon

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 15, 1981

E. J. Brady

OLRB0 cases1980–1984

Board followed usual practice of excluding part-time employees from the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent employer had one part-time employee on the application date but a history of hiring other part-time employees.

The Board varied its previous decision appointing an officer to inquire into community of interest, deciding instead to follow its usual practice of excluding persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four hours per week from the bargaining unit.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. The Corporation of the Township of Schreiber, 1981 CanLII 855

V. Belleville

L. Rothstein

F. Tailor

E. L. Stringer, Q.C.

9 cases1980–1992

D. L. Brisbin

8 cases1980–1987

C. G. Paliare

2 cases1981–1981

R. O. MacDowell

H.J.F. Ade

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 13, 1981

Employer breached duty to bargain in good faith by insisting on altering recognition clause to exclude related company.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer bargained in bad faith by repudiating a memorandum of agreement.

The parties had resolved all outstanding issues and signed a memorandum subject to ratification.

Before ratification, the respondent acquired a related company and subsequently refused to ratify the agreement unless the union agreed to amend the recognition clause to explicitly exclude the employees of the newly acquired company.

The Board held that the respondent's insistence on altering the recognition clause to avoid the potential application of the related employer provisions of the Labour Relations Act was inconsistent with the scheme of the Act and constituted a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Cybermedix Limited, 1981 CanLII 865

R.J. Mc Comb

5 cases1980–1987

F.J. Mathews

1 case1980–1980

Alick Ryder

25 cases1980–2001

R. O. MacDowell

H. Simon

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 20, 1980

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

Termination application dismissed; employer's anti-union conduct and unilateral wage increase tainted voluntariness of employee petition.

The applicant applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board first determined that the application was timely, finding that an early notice to bargain under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act was effective to terminate the collective agreement on its nominal expiry date, despite not complying with the agreement's specific notice provisions.

However, the Board dismissed the application because it was not satisfied that the employee petition was voluntary.

The Board found that the employer's anti-union conduct, including refusing to adhere to the collective agreement, unilaterally introducing benefits, and granting a wage increase immediately prior to the petition, created an atmosphere where employees could not freely express their wishes.

Rene Herweyer v. Retail Clerks Union Local 486, 1980 CanLII 907

Tony Borg

1 case1980–1980

Ted Wohl

3 cases1980–1981

John O'Donoghue

2 cases1980–1981

R. O. MacDowell

E. C. Went

OLRB0 cases1980–1981

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 9, 1980

Individual employees cannot apply under section 95(2) to determine their status if union and employer agree.

A group of registered nursing assistants (RNAs) applied under section 95(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of their employee status.

The employer and the union had previously agreed that the RNAs were employees covered by the collective agreement.

The Board held that section 95(2) is designed to resolve disputes between the immediate parties to the bargaining relationship (the employer and the union).

It is not available to individual employees to question their status when that status is not a matter of dispute between the employer and the trade union.

The application was dismissed.

Group of Employees v. Central Park Lodges of Canada, 1980 CanLII 781

R. O. MacDowell

C. G. Bourne

C. A. Ballentine