R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 15, 1991

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

G. O. Shamanski

OLRB0 cases1986–1994

OHSA reprisal complaint dismissed; discharge was for unauthorized absence, not for refusing unsafe work.

The complainant, a millwright, alleged he was discharged contrary to section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) after refusing to work due to alleged isocyanate exposure.

The employer maintained the discharge was for failing to provide satisfactory medical evidence for an extended absence, triggering an automatic loss of seniority under the collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found no breach of section 24(1), concluding the discharge was not a reprisal for the work refusal but resulted from the unauthorized absence.

The Board further declined to exercise its discretion under section 24(7) to substitute a lesser penalty, noting the complainant's work refusal was not bona fide and he had abused the statutory rights provided by the OHSA.

G. Ryerson v. H. H. Robertson Inc., 1991 CanLII 6047

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 5, 1991

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Adjournment request denied; counsel's scheduling conflict insufficient to delay occupational health and safety hearing.

The complainant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act because his counsel was unavailable.

The respondent opposed the request.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting the statutory objective of expeditious resolution and the fact that the hearing date was fixed before counsel accepted the retainer.

The Board stated the request could be renewed at the commencement of the hearing.

Wade Dennis Procter v. Whitler Industries Ltd., 1991 CanLII 6055

S. Y. Turenne

R. Bordeleau

M. Van Dusen

3 cases1991–2006

J. J. Slaughter

2 cases1989–1991

G. Gifford

C. Gastonguay

R. R. Montague

R. M. Sloan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 25, 1991

Brain Herlich

OLRB0 cases1990–1999

Request for new representation vote denied where union failed to object to unilingual name before vote.

The applicant union requested a new representation vote after losing the initial vote, arguing that the ballot was defective because its name appeared only in English, despite the ballot otherwise being bilingual.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had reviewed the sample ballot prior to the vote, chose not to object to avoid delaying the vote, and signed a waiver of objection after the vote.

The Board applied its established policy that a party cannot 'lie in the bushes' and challenge a vote's regularity only after learning it lost.

Independent Canadian Transit Union v. Hopital Montfort, 1991 CanLII 6083

R. W Pirrie

OLRB0 cases1985–1998

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 18, 1990

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRB0 cases1986–1999

Employer ordered to compensate worker suspended for refusing to perform work he considered unsafe.

The complainant, a strander operator, was instructed to fill holes in the plant parking lot with gravel.

He refused to put more gravel in his wheelbarrow, citing concerns that he might hurt himself due to the terrain and the wheelbarrow's condition.

The employer's general foreman sent the complainant home for the afternoon without conducting an investigation as required by the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that the complainant's work refusal was based on honestly held safety concerns and that the employer unlawfully disciplined him by imposing a half-day suspension.

The employer was ordered to compensate the complainant for lost wages and benefits.

Terry Bearman & United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers of Canada, Local 520 v. Boston Insulated Wire and Cable Co., 1990 CanLII 5618

Robert N. Gilmore

Paul Falzone

9 cases1982–1999

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 14, 1990

Ken Petryshen

OLRB0 cases1986–2026

Union certified without a vote after employee petition opposing certification was found involuntary.

The union applied for certification to represent employees at Chapleau Forest Products.

Objecting employees filed a petition opposing the certification and requested an adjournment to retain counsel, which the Board denied due to lack of timely effort.

The Board found the union's membership evidence valid and amended the applicant's name to correct a technical defect.

Ultimately, the Board gave no weight to the objecting employees' petition, finding it was circulated on the employer's premises in a manner that would lead reasonable employees to believe management was involved.

As the union had support from more than 55% of the bargaining unit, the Board ordered a certificate to issue without a representation vote.

IWA-Canada, Local 1-2995 v. Chapleau Forest Products Limited, 1990 CanLII 5624

G. Reynolds

D. A. Whyte

B. Christie

6 cases1990–2000

A. Ahee

3 cases1982–1991

W. Gibson

OLRB0 cases1980–1990

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 11, 1990

Louisa M. Davie

OLRB0 cases1988–1996

Related employer application dismissed due to union's delay in asserting its bargaining rights.

The applicant union sought declarations under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of business and that the two corporate respondents were related employers.

The respondents conceded they carried on related activities under common control but argued the application should be dismissed due to the union's delay.

The Board found that the union had actual knowledge of the non-union company's operations and its employment of non-union plumbers for several years but failed to act promptly or put the employer on notice.

Due to this delay and the potential prejudice to unrepresented employees, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to make a single employer declaration and dismissed both applications.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 463 v. Andreynolds Company Limited, 1990 CanLII 5749

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

R. R. Montague

R. M. Sloan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 8, 1990

Louisa M. Davie

OLRB0 cases1988–1996

Cross-complaints alleging unfair labour practices dismissed as they were fundamentally jurisdictional disputes over work assignments.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 and the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 filed cross-complaints alleging violations of sections 67 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The complaints arose from a dispute over the inclusion of certain equipment operator classifications in the respective unions' wage schedules during the negotiation of a landscaping collective agreement.

Both unions brought preliminary motions to dismiss the other's complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed both complaints, finding that neither union had established a violation of section 70, and that the allegations under section 67 were essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignments disguised as an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board held that such disputes should be resolved through the jurisdictional dispute procedures under the Act.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, 1990 CanLII 5945

Wayne Hanley

2 cases1986–1990

J. Paul Wearing

16 cases1984–2016

Harold F. Caley

51 cases1980–2003

D. Brent Labord

14 cases1989–2015

W. A. Correll

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 20, 1990

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

Application alleging sale of a business dismissed; new tenant's operation was an expansion of its own business.

The applicant union filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging a sale of a business from Steinberg to Ferlisi.

Steinberg had surrendered its lease for a supermarket premises, and the landlord subsequently leased the premises to Ferlisi, an operator of ethnic supermarkets.

Ferlisi also purchased unwanted equipment left by Steinberg at the landlord's insistence.

The Board found no nexus between Steinberg and Ferlisi, noting that Ferlisi's operation was targeted to a specific ethnic community and was an expansion of its own pre-existing business rather than a continuation of Steinberg's business.

The application was dismissed.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Locals 175 & 633 v. Miracle Food Mart, a Division of Steinberg Inc. and 722686 Ontario Limited, c.o.b. Ferlisi Supermarkets, 1990 CanLII 5745

W. A. Treleaven

Joseph Atkinson

R. R. Montague

Michael Bendel

OLRB0 cases1987–1991

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 5, 1990

Board dismissed union dues complaint for lack of jurisdiction, holding enforcement belongs at grievance arbitration.

The complainant union filed a complaint under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act alleging the respondent employer violated section 43 by failing to remit deducted union dues.

The parties had previously settled a grievance on the issue by agreeing to submit the dispute to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

At the hearing, the Board raised the issue of its jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the complaint, holding that section 43 only requires the inclusion of a dues deduction provision in a collective agreement, while enforcement of such provisions falls under section 50 and must be resolved through grievance arbitration under section 44.

The Board noted that its statutory jurisdiction cannot be expanded by the agreement of the parties.

Local Lodge 2511 and District Lodge 717, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Caravan Trailer Rental Co. Limited, 1990 CanLII 5808

Murray Gold

16 cases1986–2013

Joseph Liberman

Suspended Administratively53 cases1980–2001

David Zimmer

5 cases1989–1992

R. R. Montague

R. M. Sloan

Judith McCormack

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 4, 1990

Board dismisses untimely and unparticularized allegations regarding union membership evidence and denies employer access to confidential records.

During an application for certification, the employer and objecting employees raised several allegations of impropriety regarding the union's membership evidence and organizing campaign.

The Board refused to entertain the first set of allegations, finding them untimely under Rule 72 and failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board also refused to hear a second set of allegations because the parties failed to comply with an order to provide specific particulars, including identifying the disputed membership cards.

Finally, the Board denied the employer's request to have a handwriting analyst examine the membership evidence, holding that such access would violate the confidentiality protections under section 111(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Ultimately, the parties agreed to dismiss the application.

Laundry & Linen Drivers and Industrial Workers Union, Local 847 v. 732571 Ontario Ltd., 1990 CanLII 5813

Walter Thornton

47 cases1986–2001

R. W Pirrie

OLRB0 cases1985–1998

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 23, 1990

Inge M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1988–2001

Union certification granted; enforcing a sub-contract clause does not constitute intimidation or coercion.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The respondent employer alleged that the union's membership evidence was obtained through intimidation or coercion, in violation of section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, because a union representative told an employee he would be removed from the site if he did not sign a union card.

The Board found that the union representative was merely explaining the consequences of enforcing a sub-contract clause in the general contractor's collective agreement.

The Board concluded there was no improper conduct, accepted the membership evidence, and issued the certificates.

Carpenters & Allied Workers Local 27 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Cuneo Interiors, 1990 CanLII 5821

Sonia Williams

Roman Stoykewych

9 cases1986–2008

Peter Quinlan

10 cases1981–2022

Harold Sachs

2 cases1990–1998

George Markovich

David W. T. Matheson

5 cases1990–1998

Cheryl Conway

W. A. Correll

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 15, 1990

M. G. Mitchnick

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

Priority Post accepted as equivalent to registered mail for timely filing of employee petitions.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A group of objecting employees sent a petition to the Board by Priority Post on the terminal date.

The union argued that Priority Post was not 'registered mail' as required by the Board's Rules of Practice and Notice to Employees, relying on a previous Board decision.

The Board declined to follow its previous decision, finding that Priority Post provides a written record of receipt with date and time of acceptance by the Post Office, which satisfies the registrable elements of registered mail.

The Board accepted the petition as timely.

IWA - Canada v. Saxon Athletic Manufacturing Inc., 1990 CanLII 5838

R. Lemoine

In Private Practice8 cases1989–2001

P. Turtle

17 cases1987–1998

George Rontiris

Geoffrey A. Howard

2 cases1990–2000

Carole Piette

5 cases1990–1995

R. W Pirrie

OLRB0 cases1985–1998

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 21, 1990

Robert D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1984–1995

Union certified without a vote after employee petition opposing certification was found involuntary due to perceived management influence.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's manufacturing plant.

Although the union demonstrated membership support exceeding 55%, a group of objecting employees filed a petition opposing certification, which would normally trigger a representation vote if found voluntary.

The Board determined the petition was not voluntary, as it was circulated by an employee perceived to have managerial authority and following a meeting with an owner that sparked widespread rumours of plant closure if the union succeeded.

Concluding that the signatures were likely influenced by fears for job security and perceived management involvement, the Board declined to order a vote and granted the certificate.

United Steelworkers of America v. Blue Bell Canada Incorporated, 1990 CanLII 5644

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

Kaye Joachim

17 cases1990–1993

James E. Bowden

16 cases1980–2014

R. R. Montague

R. M. Sloan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 16, 1990

Louisa M. Davie

OLRB0 cases1988–1996

Union certification granted; collective agreement provisions protecting older workers do not constitute prohibited age discrimination.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of electricians.

The respondent employer objected, arguing that the union's provincial collective agreement discriminated on the basis of age by providing preferential treatment to older workers, contrary to the Human Rights Code and section 13 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board denied the Ontario Human Rights Commission intervener status.

The Board found that the impugned provisions, which provided job security and preferred access to less physically demanding jobs for older members, did not constitute prohibited discrimination but were reasonable accommodations.

The Board also resolved a dispute over an employee's inclusion in the bargaining unit and ultimately granted the certification.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union No. 1739 v. Gilmar Electric Inc., 1990 CanLII 5719

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 8, 1990

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

M. Rozenberg

OLRB0 cases1988–1991

Board directed employer to post decision extending time for objections due to late notice posting.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held, resulting in a substantial majority in favour of the union.

However, the employer was unable to post the Form 70 Notice to Employees of the vote results until the day before the time fixed for objections.

Out of an abundance of caution, the Board directed the employer to post this decision and extended the time for employees to contest the election results to January 21, 1990.

If no persuasive representations are received, a certificate will issue.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Carleton Roman Catholic Separate School Board, 1990 CanLII 5717

M. Contini

9 cases1982–2023

Jack J. Slaughter

9 cases1986–2001

W. N. Fraser

OLRB0 cases1988–2000

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 22, 1989

G. Surdykowski

OLRB0 cases1989–1989

Union certification granted; late adjournment request by employer denied for lacking cogent basis.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The respondent Innisfil Landfill Corporation requested an adjournment on the day before the hearing, citing unspecified personal and business reasons.

The Board denied the adjournment request, finding it untimely and lacking a cogent basis.

The application was withdrawn against the other respondents.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and, satisfied that more than 55% of the employees were members of the applicant, ordered that a certificate issue.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Spider-Maple Lift Limited, 1989 CanLII 3313

John Saunders

15 cases1989–2021

W. A. Correll

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 21, 1989

Owen V. Gray

OLRB0 cases1983–2022

Head Secretaries found to be employees under the Labour Relations Act, not managerial or confidential exclusions.

The applicant union applied under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act for a determination of whether Head Secretaries employed by the respondent school board were employees within the meaning of the Act.

The respondent argued the Board should not entertain the application because the position was expressly excluded from the bargaining unit during certification.

The Board decided to answer the question, noting the union's allegation of a bargaining table agreement to determine the issue via section 106(2) and the resources already expended on the inquiry.

On the merits, the Board found that Head Secretaries do not exercise managerial functions or act in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3)(b).

The Board concluded they are employees under the Act.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Board of Education for the City of Etobicoke, 1989 CanLII 2987

W. S. Cook

6 cases1982–2000

Vanessa Kelly

Richard A. Blair

16 cases1989–2019

J. H. Parker

Brian Robinson

W. H. Wightman

OLRB0 cases1981–1996

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 16, 1989

Michael Bendel

OLRB0 cases1987–1991

Religious exemption from union dues denied as untimely; Human Rights Code does not override Labour Relations Act.

The applicant sought an exemption from paying union dues on religious grounds, arguing that her anti-abortion beliefs conflicted with the union's pro-choice policy.

The trade union opposed the application as untimely under section 47(2) of the Labour Relations Act, since the applicant was not employed when the first collective agreement requiring dues deduction was entered into.

The applicant argued the Human Rights Code should override the Act to prevent constructive discrimination.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it untimely and affirming that the Human Rights Code does not have primacy over the Labour Relations Act.

Dana M. Colarusso v. Canadian Union of Educational Workers, Local 2, 1989 CanLII 3083

Walter Thornton

47 cases1986–2001

D. Brown

2 cases1985–1989

B. Dodds

R. R. Montague

R. 0. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–1999

G. 0. Shamanski