R. R. Montague

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 4, 1998

Residential treatment centre for conduct-disordered adolescents designated as a hospital under HLDAA.

The Ministry of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Residential Treatment Centre is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The employer provides long-term residential treatment to moderately to severely conduct-disordered adolescents.

Based on the written submissions, the Board found that the employer offers observation, care, and treatment for residents suffering from physical or mental illness on both a medical and personal level.

The Board advised the Ministry that the employer is a hospital within the meaning of the Act.

Ottawa-Carleton Regional Residential Treatment Centre v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2376, 1998 CanLII 18244

Susan Ursel

44 cases1985–2024

Sue McCulloch

2 cases1995–1997

Steven L. Moate

8 cases1985–1997

Sheila Shultz

Sharron Luloff

Sandy Hopper

Risa Pancer

22 cases1994–2011

Rheal Lemoine

Mike Groom

3 cases1997–2000

Mark Rowlinson

21 cases1995–2013

Marc-Andre Pelletier

Lynn Harnden

6 cases1996–2016

Lois Moss

Jun Galbraith

Gary Beremer

Daniel Randazzo

15 cases1993–2001

Cynthia Watson

8 cases1993–2015

Charlene Avon

Russell G. Goodfellow

OLRB0 cases1993–2000

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 28, 1997

Board adopts surviving hospital's broader bargaining unit structure and orders representation vote following hospital merger.

The Pembroke Civic Hospital applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following a directive to close and transfer its operations to the Pembroke General Hospital.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit structure and the identity of the resulting bargaining agents for the intermingled employees.

The Board determined that the broader-based bargaining unit structure already in place at the surviving hospital (the General) was appropriate, noting its 25-year history of success and the general labour relations trend toward broader units.

The Board ordered a representation vote to allow employees to choose their bargaining agent from among all the affected trade unions.

Pembroke Civic Hospital v. Pembroke General Hospital, 1997 CanLII 15511

R. R. Montague

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 29, 1997

Brain Herlich

OLRB0 cases1990–1999

Reprisal complaint dismissed because the applicant elected to proceed by grievance arbitration.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the employer committed an unlawful reprisal under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Smoking in the Workplace Act by failing to accommodate his need to avoid second-hand smoke.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant had already elected to proceed by way of a grievance arbitration.

The Board held that section 50(6) of the OHSA does not grant the Board exclusive jurisdiction over Crown employees to the exclusion of arbitration.

The application was dismissed as the applicant had elected to proceed before the Grievance Settlement Board.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Bill Walls v. The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services) and I. Hadden, A. Dvorak, R. Lundy, 1997 CanLII 15589

Roy C. Filion

42 cases1980–2017

C. M. Mitchell

38 cases1980–1999

Christopher M. Little

7 cases1997–2017

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 27, 1997

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

Interim relief granted preventing employer from unilaterally excluding employees from bargaining unit during strike.

The union applied for an interim order to prevent the employer from unilaterally excluding seven employees from the bargaining unit at the commencement of a lawful strike.

The employer argued the Board's jurisdiction to grant interim relief was limited to procedural matters under section 98 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board held that section 16.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act grants it a general power to make interim orders, which prevails over section 98 of the LRA due to the conflict provision in section 32 of the SPPA.

Applying the two-pronged test for interim relief, the Board found the union had established an arguable case of unfair labour practices and that the balance of labour relations harm favoured granting the order, as the employer's actions undermined the strike and union morale.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1287 v. The Regional Municipality of Niagara, 1997 CanLII 15582

S. Liang

OLRB0 cases1991–1997

R. R. Montague

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 22, 1997

Termination application dismissed under s. 43(23) following consent order for first contract arbitration.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights shortly after the union applied for first contract arbitration.

The Board previously determined it would consider the first contract application before the termination application.

During the first contract hearings, the employer and union reached a settlement, and the Board issued a consent order directing the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

Consequently, pursuant to the mandatory language of section 43(23) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board dismissed the termination application, rejecting arguments that doing so violated the employees' Charter rights.

Lynda Ann Falvo v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Locals 175/633, 1997 CanLII 15580

Ross Dunsmore

18 cases1980–2022

Risa Pancer

22 cases1994–2011

Nicole Wharton

Melissa Sergiades

Mary Hodder

Esther Gaudet

Cindy Forster

Beverly Lanigan-Gilmour

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 17, 1997

Roman Stoykewych

OLRB0 cases1993–1997

Orval R. McGuire

OLRB0 cases1995–1997

Union certified for part-time nurses; Board upholds five-day vote and restricts unit to direct care.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent part-time and casual nurses at the responding hospital.

A representation vote was held within five days of the application, resulting in a majority for the union.

The employer challenged the vote, arguing the short timeframe and single voting day provided insufficient notice and access for casual employees.

The Board dismissed this objection, finding the statutory five-day quick vote model applied and the parties' own efforts ensured adequate notice.

On the issue of the bargaining unit description, the Board agreed with the employer that the part-time unit should 'mirror' the historical full-time unit, which was restricted to nurses providing direct nursing care, to avoid serious labour relations harm.

A final certificate was issued for the restricted unit.

Ontario Nurses' Association v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 1997 CanLII 15592

S. C. Laing

OLRB0 cases1994–2000

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 15, 1996

Laura Trachuk

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit of security guards.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of security guards employed by the responding party in Ottawa.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote, with segregated ballots for disputed positions, and deferred consideration of the responding party's objection under section 14(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to a future hearing.

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. B. A. Banknote, a division of Quebecor Printing Inc., 1996 CanLII 11129

S. C. Laing

OLRB0 cases1994–2000

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 16, 1996

Christopher Albertyn

OLRB0 cases1995–2024

Representation vote for termination application deferred pending hearing of first contract arbitration and employer initiation allegations.

The applicant applied for termination of the union's bargaining rights.

The union responded with allegations of employer initiation under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and had a pending application for first contract arbitration under section 43.

The Board deferred ordering a representation vote and directed that the termination application be heard together with the first contract arbitration application.

Lynda Ann Falvo v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175/633, 1996 CanLII 11194

Steve Pawelko

1 case1996–1996

P. Straszynski

6 cases1994–2000

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 2, 1996

O. R. McGuire

OLRB0 cases1994–1997

B. Herlich

OLRB0 cases1996–2005

Application to separate full-time and part-time bargaining units dismissed as community of interest existed.

The employer applied under section 5(2) of the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995 (Bill 7) to separate its existing combined full-time and part-time bargaining units into distinct units.

The employer argued that Bill 7 codified a pre-1993 presumption that there is no community of interest between full-time and part-time employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected this argument, finding that Bill 7 did not codify such a presumption and that the Board must assess the specific circumstances of each case.

Based on the agreed facts, the Board found a clear community of interest between the full-time and part-time employees, as they performed the same duties under the same supervision, received the same training, and had similar conditions of employment.

The application was dismissed.

Caressant Care Nursing Home of Canada, Limited v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 2225.09, 1996 CanLII 11192

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 22, 1996

Laura Trachuk

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

0. R. McGuire

OLRB0 cases1996–1996

Application for termination of bargaining rights dismissed as untimely due to ongoing first contract arbitration.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The union and the employer had previously agreed to continue a first contract arbitration under the transition provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that this agreement constituted an irrevocable agreement to arbitrate under section 40 of the Act, which has the same effect as a collective agreement in making a termination application untimely.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

Kim Hartsell v. United Steelworkers of America, 1996 CanLII 11143

R. R. Montague

Jerry Kovacs

OLRB0 cases1995–2000

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 18, 1995

Request for reconsideration of certification decision dismissed; desire for further reasons insufficient to stay certificates.

The responding employers requested that the Board reconsider its decision to issue certificates to the applicant union, arguing that the Board failed to provide sufficient reasons for an earlier decision regarding the employee list.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the employers did not seek to introduce new evidence or make representations they had no prior opportunity to raise.

The Board held that a request for further reasons is not a sufficient ground to reconsider a decision to issue final certificates, and provided brief supplementary reasons explaining its evidentiary findings regarding the employees in question.

International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades v. Bradscot Construction Limited, 1995 CanLII 9913

Tom Zakrzewski

5 cases1986–1995

Susan Ballantyne

18 cases1992–2013

Robert McKay

17 cases1984–2001

Robert McGibbon

3 cases1992–1995

Paul Jarvis

12 cases1984–2000

Michael Battista

3 cases1992–1995

J James Nyman

38 cases1981–2016

D. J. Shields

6 cases1991–2008

David Moore

11 cases1988–2015

Bernard Hanson

36 cases1985–2022

Susan Tacon

OLRB0 cases1991–1996

R. R. Montague

G. 0. Shamanski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 2, 1995

Applications alleging sale of business, bad faith bargaining, and unfair labour practices in supermarket acquisition dismissed.

The Teamsters and individual complainants alleged that Steinberg breached the duty to bargain in good faith by negotiating a collective agreement with final offer selection and labour peace provisions, and subsequently selling its Ontario retail operations to A & P. They also alleged that the transaction constituted a sale of the distribution business under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, and that the structure of the deal and A & P's subsequent hiring practices were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed all applications and complaints, finding no breach of the duty to bargain in good faith, no sale of the distribution business, and no anti-union animus in the transaction's structure or A & P's hiring practices.

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Steinberg Inc., 1995 CanLII 9919

J. D. Shanks

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 24, 1995

Orval R. McGuire

OLRB0 cases1995–1997

K. G. 0'Neil

OLRB0 cases1991–1995

Certification granted; Board refused to defer for seasonal build-up and dismissed misrepresentation allegations.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at a greenhouse.

The employer argued the application should be deferred until the fall harvest season when the workforce would be significantly larger due to the seasonal nature of the business.

Intervening employees alleged that the union's membership evidence was collected using intimidation and misrepresentation regarding job security and seniority.

The Board declined to defer the application, finding the workforce at the time of application was sufficiently representative of the core regular employees.

The Board also dismissed the allegations of improper conduct, finding no material misrepresentation or coercion that would cast doubt on the voluntariness of the membership evidence.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

IWA-Canada, Local 2693 v. Hill's Greenhouse Ltd, 1995 CanLII 10026

Sheri D. Price

Patrick F. Milloy

13 cases1986–2013

Georgina C. Watts

2 cases1995–2010

Doug Gilbert

5 cases1987–1995

Damhnait Monaghen

Cynthia D. Watson

7 cases1993–2013

Brian Burkett

9 cases1980–1995

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. R. Montague

Judith McCormack

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 26, 1995

Board asserts jurisdiction under Agricultural Labour Relations Act and upholds union membership evidence despite employee's change of heart.

The union applied for certification under the Agricultural Labour Relations Act.

The employer raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the agriculture industry division was not properly designated because the Chair did not consult the Agricultural Labour Management Advisory Committee.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding no statutory requirement for such consultation.

The Board then considered an allegation regarding a union membership card signed by an intervening employee who subsequently changed her mind and asked for the card back.

The Board held that the initial application for membership was valid and that a subsequent change of heart did not invalidate the card for the purposes of the certification application.

As the union had sufficient membership evidence, a certificate was issued.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Highline Produce Limited, 1995 CanLII 9980

Shaun Herron

Kathy Aitken

Kathleen Martin

14 cases1989–2002

Josie Jenkins

Jack Nelson

Harvey Beresford

8 cases1985–1995

R. W Pirrie

OLRB0 cases1985–1998

Russell G. Goodfellow

OLRB0 cases1993–2000

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 4, 1995

Application to combine editorial and part-time mailroom bargaining units granted.

The applicant union applied to combine two bargaining units it represented at the respondent newspaper: one consisting of editorial employees and another consisting of part-time mailroom employees.

The employer opposed the combination, arguing the units lacked a community of interest and that the combination would shift bargaining power and cause serious labour relations problems.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application, finding that the combination would facilitate viable and stable collective bargaining, reduce fragmentation, and not cause serious labour relations problems.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 87-M, Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild v. The Spectator, A Division of Southam Inc., 1995 CanLII 10070

Yvonnetta Bushell

Wesley Emerson

3 cases1995–1997

Sonja Altshul

Ron Roscoe

Luiza Monteiro

4 cases1993–1996

Andrew Mackenzie

2 cases1995–1997

R. W Pirrie

OLRB0 cases1985–1998

R. R. Montague

Judith McCormack

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 30, 1995

Floating employees excluded from retirement home bargaining unit to avoid fragmentation and administrative difficulties.

The applicant union sought certification for employees at a 60-bed retirement home.

The parties disputed whether fifty 'floating' maintenance and housekeeping employees, who serviced twenty-five different homes, should be included in the bargaining unit.

The Board determined that including the floating employees would create serious labour relations problems and administrative difficulties, as they could potentially fall into multiple bargaining units.

The Board excluded the floating employees from the bargaining unit and, finding that more than fifty-five percent of the employees in the unit had applied for membership, granted the certification.

Service Employees International Union Local 532 v. Meadowcroft Holdings Inc., 1995 CanLII 9963

Mike Armstrong

4 cases1995–2000

John Aman

2 cases1995–2001

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

Diego Sdao

C. E. Humphrey

23 cases1980–2001

S. Liang

OLRB0 cases1991–1997

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 28, 1995

F. B. Reaume

OLRB0 cases1992–1997

Union certified without representation vote; majority dismisses objectors' allegations of undue pressure and misrepresentation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees requested a representation vote, alleging undue pressure and misrepresentation during the organizing drive, including claims that employees were told they could have their signed cards returned.

The union brought a motion requesting the Board not inquire further into the allegations.

The majority of the Board granted the union's motion, finding that the alleged pressure amounted to persistence and salesmanship rather than intimidation or coercion.

The majority also held that even if two cards were discounted due to alleged misrepresentations about returning them, the union still had sufficient support for automatic certification.

A certificate was issued to the union.

One Board member dissented in part, stating they would have inquired further into the misrepresentation allegations and ordered a secret ballot vote.

United Steelworkers of America v. Market Drive Donuts Ltd., c.o.b. as Tim Horton Donuts, 1995 CanLII 10040

David Wright

188 cases1989–2025

Charles V. Hofley

4 cases1994–2013

B. P. Bellmore

4 cases1980–1994

R. R. Montague

Lee Shouldice

OLRB0 cases1994–1999

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 15, 1994

Combined full-time and part-time bargaining unit found appropriate in displacement certification application.

In a displacement application for certification, the applicant union sought to represent a single comprehensive bargaining unit combining the incumbent union's separate full-time and part-time units.

The Board found that the incumbent held bargaining rights for two separate units, but concluded that the applicant's proposed combined unit was appropriate for collective bargaining due to the interconnected nature of the existing collective agreements.

The Board also ruled that probationary employees were included in the bargaining units and entitled to vote.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Canadian Red Cross Society, 1994 CanLII 9802

Steven L. Moate

8 cases1985–1997

Lorne Rachlis

Ian J. Fellows

20 cases1994–2024

E. Rand Linttell

Brian Babineau

Alan Wotherspoon

W. A. Correll

R. R. Montague