R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 13, 1993

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRB0 cases1986–1999

Application to terminate union's bargaining rights following voluntary recognition agreement dismissed.

The applicant, a professional engineer employed by Ontario Hydro, applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent trade union under section 61 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant alleged that the union was not entitled to represent the employees at the time it entered into a voluntary recognition agreement with the employer, citing issues with the inclusion of managerial employees, the lack of a separate vote for professional engineers, and alleged improprieties in the ratification vote.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the ratification vote was fair and appropriate, the inclusion of managerial employees did not invalidate the agreement, and section 6(4) of the Act regarding separate votes for professional engineers did not apply to voluntary recognition agreements.

The Board concluded that the union enjoyed the support of the vast majority of employees, including professional engineers, at the time the agreement was entered into.

Eric de Buda v. The Society of Ontario Hydro Professional and Administrative Employees, 1993 CanLII 7806

Robert Maclntyre

Michael Mazzuca

7 cases1992–2014

Hank de Zoete

F. Van Oir Schot

Elizabeth Forster

19 cases1980–2015

Edward W. Ducharme

3 cases1992–1999

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 8, 1992

K. G. O'Neil

OLRB0 cases1988–1998

F. B. Reaume

OLRB0 cases1992–1997

Board allowed addition of new applicants to cure original applicant's lack of standing in termination application.

The applicant applied for termination of construction industry bargaining rights.

The respondent union argued the applicant lacked standing because he was not at work on the application date, rendering the application a nullity.

The applicant sought to add two other employees who were at work on the application date as party applicants.

The Board held that although the original applicant lacked standing, the application was not a nullity.

The Board exercised its discretion under Rules 79 and 84 to add the two other petitioners as applicants, allowing the application to proceed.

Stephen Myers v. Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, 1992 CanLII 6776

W. I. McNaughton

5 cases1981–1999

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

P. Settimi

Marc Noel

L. Curto

Ian Mckie

Hank Beekhuis

4 cases1981–1992

Fern Bastien

Elizabeth Forster

19 cases1980–2015

Bert Wierenga

W. A. Correll

S. Liang

OLRB0 cases1991–1997

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 3, 1992

Negotiating a renewal collective agreement during a displacement application does not violate the statutory freeze.

The applicant union filed an application for certification to displace the incumbent union.

During the application process, the employer and the incumbent union negotiated and signed a renewal collective agreement.

The applicant argued that this violated the statutory freeze under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act and constituted unlawful employer support under section 49.

The Board held that the statutory freeze does not suspend the duty to bargain between an employer and an incumbent union.

The negotiation and conclusion of a renewal agreement do not, in and of themselves, violate the freeze or constitute unlawful employer support.

The application for certification was dismissed as untimely.

Labourers International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council v. Stephens and Rankin Inc., 1992 CanLII 6311

Tom Zakrzewski

5 cases1986–1995

Susan Ballantyne

18 cases1992–2013

Robert McKay

17 cases1984–2001

Robert McGibbon

Paul Jarvis

12 cases1984–2000

Michael Battista

J James Nyman

38 cases1981–2016

H. Freedman

D. I. Shields

David Moore

11 cases1988–2015

B. Hanson

Susan Tacon

OLRB0 cases1991–1996

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 28, 1992

G. O. Shamanski

OLRB0 cases1986–1994

CCAA stay order encompasses and stays ongoing proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The respondent Steinberg Inc. obtained an ex parte order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) from the Quebec Superior Court staying all proceedings against it.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered whether this stay order applied to ongoing unfair labour practice and related employer proceedings before the Board.

The Board held that the broad language of the CCAA and the court order encompassed its adjudicative processes, notwithstanding the remedial nature of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board further held that the proceedings could not be severed to continue against the co-respondent A&P unless the applicants withdrew their complaints against Steinberg.

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Steinberg Inc., 1992 CanLII 6326

Linda Vannucci-Santini

6 cases1990–1996

R. W Pirrie

OLRB0 cases1985–1998

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 16, 1992

K. G. O'Neil

OLRB0 cases1988–1998

Board awards mental distress damages and lost dental benefits following unlawful reprisal discharge.

Following a finding that the complainant was unlawfully discharged for raising safety concerns after a workplace injury, the Board held a hearing to determine compensation.

The Board awarded $500 in damages for mental distress, finding that the abrupt and unlawful termination exacerbated the complainant's existing post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Board also awarded $1,700 for dental work that would have been covered by the employer's benefits plan had the complainant not been unlawfully discharged, as well as outstanding vacation pay.

One Board member dissented on the award of mental distress damages.

Wade Dennis Proctor v. Whitler Industries Limited, 1992 CanLII 6314

S. Caplan

R. A. Werry

38 cases1980–1994

P. Turtle

17 cases1987–1998

N. Roland

L. Sutherland

L. Ritchie

J. O'Connor

A. Feijo

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 15, 1992

M. A. Nairn

OLRB0 cases1989–2001

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Board finds sale of business and intermingling of employees, ordering a representation vote.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of a business and intermingling of employees occurred between the respondent companies, and requested a representation vote.

The Board found that a sale of a business had occurred when Union Felt purchased Almac Industries Inc. and subsequently integrated operations.

The Board concluded that intermingling of employees had taken place and ordered a representation vote to determine which of the two trade unions should represent the combined bargaining unit.

The Canadian Textile and Chemical Union v. Union Felt Products (Ontario) Ltd., 1992 CanLII 6315

Elizabeth Hosie

2 cases1991–1992

Doug Wray

7 cases1981–2026

C. J. Abbass

37 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 24, 1992

Robert D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1984–1995

Decertification petition found voluntary despite circulation on company premises; representation vote ordered.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued the decertification petition was not voluntary because it was circulated on company premises during working hours and some employees were told it was merely to keep their options open.

The Board found no evidence of managerial involvement or support for the petition.

The Board concluded the petition was voluntary and directed a representation vote.

Stephen Stacey and Frank King v. The Canadian Paper-Workers Union and its Local 934, 1992 CanLII 6346

W. A. Correll

R. R. Montague

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 16, 1992

Related employer declaration granted where two flooring companies operated under common control and direction.

The applicant union sought a declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that R.R. Projects Inc. and Golden Arm Flooring Inc. be treated as one employer.

The Board found that the two companies carried on related activities in the resilient flooring contracting business under common control or direction, noting their interrelationship of operations, common management, and financial control.

The Board granted the declaration to protect the union's bargaining rights and directed Golden Arm Flooring Inc. to pay unsatisfied damages previously awarded against R.R. Projects Inc.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. R. R. Projects Inc., 1992 CanLII 6357

W. McRoberts

W. J. McNaughton

30 cases1980–2000

Ron Coltart

Ronald Davis

6 cases1992–2026

P. Roach

N. L. Jesin

70 cases1987–2001

M. Whittaker

John Sciandra

James Anderson

17 cases1988–2023

Jack Slaughter

7 cases1988–2001

Brian Scott

2 cases1992–2022

Brian Doherty

2 cases1992–1992

Susan Tacon

OLRB0 cases1991–1996

R. R. Montague

G. 0. Shamanski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 8, 1992

Board denies preliminary adjournment and deferral motions in certification application, appointing officer for record check.

In an application for certification by Shopmen's Local 834, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dealt with several preliminary motions.

The Board denied the respondent's request for an adjournment to give notice to other parties, ruling the issue was raised too late.

The Board also denied a request to extend the terminal date due to an intervener application, maintaining its practice of using the original application's dates.

Finally, the Board refused to defer the certification applications pending the outcome of related grievance referrals.

A Board Officer was appointed to conduct a record check regarding the bargaining unit composition.

Shopmen's Local #834 of the International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers v. E.S. Fox Limited, 1992 CanLII 6353

W. A. Correll

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 14, 1992

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Board orders pre-hearing document production to resolve employer identity in certification and ULP dispute.

In a consolidated application for certification and unfair labour practice complaint, the central issue was identifying the true employer of the subject construction workers.

Following initial hearings where document production was incomplete, the union requested an order for the production of time and payroll records from the respondents.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, directing the parties to identify, list, and file all relevant documents prior to the recommencement of hearings to avoid further prejudicial delays.

Labourers International Union of North America, Local 607 v. Grant Development Corporation and/or Pic Heron Bay Indian Band, 1992 CanLII 6740

Tom Zakrzewski

5 cases1986–1995

Susan Ballantyne

18 cases1992–2013

Robert McKay

17 cases1984–2001

Robert McGibbon

Paul Jarvis

12 cases1984–2000

Michael Battista

J James Nyman

38 cases1981–2016

D. J. Shields

6 cases1991–2008

David Moore

11 cases1988–2015

Susan Tacon

OLRB0 cases1991–1996

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 5, 1992

G. O. Shamanski

OLRB0 cases1986–1994

Board directed respondent to produce a witness regarding a sale of business allegation.

The applicants and complainants brought a motion seeking a direction from the Board that the respondent Steinberg produce a witness to testify regarding an allegation of a sale of business under section 64 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondents argued that the statutory duty under section 64(13) was satisfied because the co-respondent, A&P, had produced a witness.

The Board rejected this argument and directed Steinberg to adduce viva voce testimony of all facts within its knowledge material to the allegation.

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Steinberg Inc., 1992 CanLII 6741

R. R. Montague

M. G. Mitchnick

G. 0. Shamanski

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 22, 1992

Board approves parties' settlement agreement directing a representation vote in certification application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint against the respondent employer.

Instead of proceeding to a five-day hearing, the parties reached an omnibus settlement agreement that included conducting a representation vote.

The parties submitted their agreement to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for approval.

The Board approved the agreement, noting its mandate to facilitate the timely resolution of workplace disputes and finding no public policy reason to reject the parties' consensus.

The Board directed a representation vote for the agreed-upon bargaining unit and adjourned the unfair labour practice complaint sine die.

United Steelworkers of America v. Weatherstrong Building Products Ltd., 1992 CanLII 6806

Walter Thornton

47 cases1986–2001

Steve Wahl

4 cases1991–2002

Harry Nicholls

Craig Flood

74 cases1988–2024

Biagio Palazzolo

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 22, 1991

Louisa M. Davie

OLRB0 cases1988–1996

Board grants construction industry certification, finding extensive parking garage concrete restoration constitutes repair rather than maintenance.

The applicant union sought certification for a construction industry bargaining unit of labourers employed by the respondent property management company.

The respondent argued it was engaged in maintenance, not construction (repair) work, and thus the construction industry provisions did not apply.

The Board applied the Master Insulators test to distinguish maintenance from repair work.

It found that while work at one parking garage was preventative maintenance, the extensive concrete demolition and resurfacing at a second garage constituted repair and therefore construction work.

As the respondent employed persons to perform construction work on the application date, the Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Belmont Property Management Ltd., 1991 CanLII 6013

Timothy Hadwen

5 cases1991–2003

Tim Little

Jean Crawford

Gayle Malloy-White

Gail Rozelle

Barry Brown

25 cases1983–2014

Ann Cummings

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 24, 1991

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRB0 cases1986–1999

Board determines employee status of eight college staff members under the College Collective Bargaining Act.

The union applied under section 81 of the College Collective Bargaining Act for a determination of whether certain persons were employees.

The Board examined the duties and responsibilities of eight individuals to determine if they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board found that three individuals were employees within the meaning of the Act, while five were excluded due to their managerial or confidential duties.

One Board member dissented regarding the status of one individual.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Fanshawe College of Applied Arts & Technology, 1991 CanLII 6198

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 3, 1991

Robert Herman

OLRB0 cases1987–1999

J. Trim

OLRB0 cases1987–1992

Board has jurisdiction over jurisdictional dispute as union made an explicit demand for the work.

The Labourers' Union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the operation of heavy machinery on a demolition project.

The Operating Engineers raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because they had not required the employer to assign the work to them.

The Board found that the Operating Engineers had made an explicit demand to the subcontractor, Greenspoon, for the work in question, both during a meeting and in a private conversation.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the preliminary objection, concluding it had jurisdiction to consider the complaint.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council v. Ellis-Don Limited, 1991 CanLII 6195

J. V. Boeckner

Allan McKitrick, Jr.

Alan Jones

2 cases1991–2013

R. W Pirrie

OLRB0 cases1985–1998

R. R. Montague

M. G. Mitchnick

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 11, 1991

Home Support Workers found to be employees and included in the bargaining unit for certification.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent, an agency assisting individuals with developmental disabilities.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description except for the inclusion of four Home Support Workers.

The employer argued these workers were dependent contractors or lacked a community of interest with other staff.

The Board found the Home Support Workers were employees under the Labour Relations Act and shared a sufficient community of interest with the other support workers.

The Board included them in the bargaining unit and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Avenue II Community Program Services (Thunder Bay) Incorporated, 1991 CanLII 6127

R. R. Montague

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 5, 1991

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRB0 cases1986–1999

Board directs respondent's estoppel argument regarding employee status to be heard as a preliminary matter.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether certain persons were employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of the disputed persons.

A dispute subsequently arose over whether the respondent's estoppel argument should be heard as a preliminary matter or during the Officer's inquiry.

The Board directed that the estoppel issue be heard and determined as a preliminary matter to avoid potential wasted time and resources, ordering the respondent to provide full particulars if it intended to pursue the argument.

York University Staff Association v. York University, 1991 CanLII 6145

W. A. Correll

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 23, 1991

G. T. Surdykowksi

OLRB0 cases1991–1991

Adjournment request denied where counsel knowingly accepted a conflicting retainer and opposing party did not consent.

Counsel for two of the respondents requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date due to a scheduling conflict with another matter before the Board.

The Board noted that the hearing dates had been agreed upon by the parties and that counsel had accepted the retainer in the other matter knowing of the conflict.

The applicant union refused to consent to the adjournment.

The Board dismissed the adjournment request, finding that the scheduling conflict was of counsel's own making and did not justify an adjournment.

The Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada, Local 1 v. Amac Masonry Limited, 1991 CanLII 6057

Thomas A. Stefanik

34 cases1981–2023

L. Steinberg

46 cases1982–2003

Lee Davey

C. Sookram

C. J. Abbass

37 cases1980–2001

W. A. Correll

R. R. Montague

N. B. Satterfield