R. R. Montague

Paula Knopf

OLRB0 cases1984–2003

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 15, 1989

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; employer proved discharge was motivated by alleged theft, not anti-union animus.

The complainant union alleged that the grievor, a bartender/waiter, was discharged during his probationary period due to his union involvement and attempts to assert rights under the collective agreement, contrary to the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer claimed the discharge was due to allegations of theft and customer complaints.

The majority of the Board found that while the circumstances raised a strong suspicion of anti-union animus, the employer had satisfied the reverse onus by proving the discharge was motivated solely by the allegations of theft reported by a trusted employee.

The complaint was dismissed, with one Board member dissenting.

Local 280 of the International Beverage Dispensers' and Bartenders' Union of the Hotel & Restaurant Employees' & Bartenders' Int'l Union v. 446285 Ontario Limited c.o.b. Beresford Tavern, 1989 CanLII 3465

Terry D. McEwan

4 cases1987–2011

Paul Head

N. Huneault

In Private Practice23 cases1988–2025

Mark J. Freiman

K. R. Valin

9 cases1983–1996

John Scott

4 cases1989–2015

Jillian Welch

F. Jones

Carole Ann Priddle

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 7, 1989

R. Herman

OLRB0 cases1986–1989

I. A. Rundle

OLRB0 cases1989–1997

Jurisdictional complaint dismissed; new nursing position in addiction program properly assigned to ONA.

The complainant hospital created a new Registered Nurse position in its alcohol and addiction program and assigned the work to the Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) bargaining unit.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) filed a jurisdictional complaint, arguing the work involved psycho-social counselling and should be assigned to its paramedical members.

The Board found that the position required a registered nurse to provide a multidisciplinary approach to treatment.

Since ONA represents registered nurses at the hospital and no OPSEU members were capable of performing the job, the Board upheld the hospital's assignment and dismissed the complaint.

Sudbury Algoma Hospital v. Ontario Nurses' Association, 1989 CanLII 3129

R. R. Montague

Patricia Hughes

OLRB0 cases1986–1991

D. A. MacDonald

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 18, 1988

Board declined to interrupt Labour Relations Officer's inquiry to review rulings on bargaining unit challenges.

During a union certification application involving a large proposed bargaining unit, a pre-hearing vote was held with approximately one-third of the ballots segregated due to challenges by the respondent employer.

The parties agreed to a procedure for Labour Relations Officers to examine the challenged persons.

During the inquiry, the employer sought orders from the Board to require the Officers to make a full inquiry into certain duties and to permit the employer to add to the list of challenged individuals, effectively appealing the Officers' rulings.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that it is inconsistent with the expeditious conduct of an Officer's inquiry to interrupt it to review rulings, and directed the Officers to continue their inquiry.

C.U.P.E. v. Governing Council of the University of Toronto, 1988 CanLII 3712

Walter T. Langley

12 cases1986–2019

Paul Kane

Aaron Rubinoff

10 cases1985–2025

W. H. Wightman

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 7, 1988

Judith McCormack

OLRB0 cases1986–1995

Employer directed to execute collective agreement as remedy for bad faith bargaining.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to execute a collective agreement.

The Board previously found a violation and convened a hearing to determine the remedy.

At the hearing, the employer requested an adjournment and supplementary reasons, both of which the Board denied, noting the delay already incurred and the lack of circumstances beyond the employer's control.

On the issue of remedy, the Board directed the employer to execute the collective agreement that had been agreed upon, with retroactive effect to September 8, 1987, to restore the parties to the position they would have been in but for the violation.

Local 2228 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Nortec Air Conditioning Industries Ltd., 1988 CanLII 3725

Jim Vair

J. Cameron Nolan

3 cases1986–2001

R. R. Montague

R. O. MacDowell

R. M. Sloan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 14, 1988

Grievance for travel allowance dismissed as collective agreement did not apply to permanent fabrication shop.

The union filed a grievance claiming that its members were entitled to a travel allowance under the provincial collective agreement when dispatched to the employer's fabrication shop, which was located outside the travel-free zone.

The employer argued that the collective agreement did not apply to its shop operations, which it characterized as manufacturing rather than construction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement distinguished between job sites and shops, and that the travel allowance provision was not intended to apply to tradesmen dispatched to a permanent shop.

The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 67 v. Calorific Construction Limited, 1988 CanLII 3648

Stephen A. McArthur

21 cases1988–2015

Elizabeth Mitchell

39 cases1988–2007

R. R. Montague

Robert Herman

OLRB0 cases1987–1999

R. M. Sloan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 14, 1988

Board accepts Form 80 but rejects incomplete membership cards; parties settle ULP complaint and agree to representation vote.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board considered the validity of the union's membership evidence and Form 80 declaration.

The Board rejected two membership cards that omitted the local union number but accepted the Form 80 as proper, noting that the defects were apparent on the face of the cards.

The parties settled the unfair labour practice complaint, agreeing to reinstate certain employees, pay damages, and hold a representation vote.

The Board also determined that a working foreman exercised managerial functions under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and was therefore excluded from the bargaining unit.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 v. P. & M. Electric (1982) Ltd., 1988 CanLII 3789

R. R. Montague

Robert Herman

OLRB0 cases1987–1999

R. M. Sloan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 30, 1988

Interim certificate issued pending determination of whether seven drivers are dependent contractors.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description but disputed whether seven drivers were employees or independent contractors.

The Board appointed a Board Officer to inquire into the status of the drivers.

As the union had sufficient membership support regardless of the drivers' status, the Board issued an interim certificate under section 6(2) of the Labour Relations Act, reserving the final certificate until the bargaining unit composition was resolved.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL:CIO:CLC: v. 502858 Ontario Limited, 1988 CanLII 3659

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Robin B. Cumine

23 cases1981–2015

N. L. Jesin

70 cases1987–2001

R. R. Montague

Inge M. Stamp

OLRB0 cases1988–2001

D. A. MacDonald

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 29, 1988

Board lacks jurisdiction over work assignment dispute where collective agreement requires reference to external tribunal.

The complainant employer filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a work assignment to the Ironworkers, which was grieved by the Millwrights.

The respondents argued the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 91(14) because the collective agreements required such disputes to be referred to the Impartial Jurisdictional Disputes Board (the Plan).

The dispute had been referred to the Plan, but the Plan declined to make a determination because the work was already completed.

The Board held that the Plan's application of its time limits did not mean it failed to entertain the dispute.

Because the collective agreements provided for a mutually selected tribunal that was functioning, section 91(14) deprived the Board of jurisdiction.

The complaint was dismissed.

Copper Cliff Mechanical Contractors Ltd. v. The Millwright District Council of Ontario et al., 1988 CanLII 3666

Win. Richardson

Ted Sefton

Henry Dinsdale

9 cases1988–2013

George W. Adams

2 cases1988–1991

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

Don Dayman

Carol Ritter

Bill Stephens

R. R. Montague

Patricia Hughes

OLRB0 cases1986–1991

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 6, 1988

Labour Relations Board has jurisdiction to hear Charter challenge to agricultural exemption in certification application.

The union applied for certification to represent employees at the respondent's hatchery.

The employer objected, arguing the employees were employed in agriculture and thus excluded from the Labour Relations Act under section 2(b).

The union countered that section 2(b) violated the Charter.

The Board unanimously found that the hatchery employees were employed in agriculture.

On the preliminary issue of jurisdiction, the majority held that the Board is a 'court of competent jurisdiction' under section 24(1) of the Charter and has the authority under section 52(1) to determine whether the agricultural exemption is constitutional.

The employer's objection to jurisdiction was dismissed, and the matter was directed to be scheduled for a hearing on the Charter challenge.

A dissenting member would have found the Board lacked jurisdiction to strike down the exemption.

United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175 v. Cuddy Chicks Limited, 1988 CanLII 3696

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Peter Thorup

22 cases1985–2016

D. Langtry

R. R. Montague

Patricia Hughes

OLRB0 cases1986–1991

D. A. MacDonald

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 22, 1988

Board deferred unfair labour practice complaint to arbitration as the dispute was primarily contractual.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent company violated the Labour Relations Act by unilaterally starting a new apprentice electrician at the third-year rate, bypassing the Joint Apprenticeship and Training Committee.

The company brought a preliminary motion requesting the Board to defer the matter to arbitration.

The Board found that the essence of the complaint involved the interpretation of the collective agreement and the scope of the Joint Committee's duties.

Concluding that the dispute was primarily contractual and that arbitration was an adequate and appropriate forum, the Board granted the motion, deferred to the arbitration process, and declined to hear the complaint on its merits.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1744 v. Boise Cascade Canada Limited, 1988 CanLII 3757

Stewart Saxe

10 cases1988–2001

Rick Beckwith

Gary Caroline

26 cases1988–2012

Francine Sauriol

David Turner

5 cases1988–2017

W. H. Wightman

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 10, 1988

Robert D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1984–1995

Board refused to exclude part-time employees from hotel banquet bargaining unit due to shared community of interest.

The applicant trade union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of banquet department employees at the respondent hotel.

The applicant sought to exclude part-time employees and students from the unit, which the respondent opposed.

The Board found that the usual practice of separating full-time and part-time employees did not apply, as all banquet employees worked on an on-call basis, shared common terms and conditions, and formed a single amorphous group without a distinct division based on hours worked.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit without the requested exclusions and directed the matter to be listed for a further hearing on outstanding issues.

Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers v. Chateau Laurier Hotel, 1988 CanLII 3616

Sharon Scott

3 cases1986–1988

Mona Anis

7 cases1988–2021

D. Devine

C. M. Mitchell

38 cases1980–1999

Clare Fitzgerald

3 cases1986–1988

Brian Burkett

9 cases1980–1995

R. R. Montague

R. O. MacDowell

D. A. MacDonald

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 2, 1988

Board finds single-branch units appropriate for bank employees and separates full-time and part-time workers.

The union applied for certification for employees at several branches of the respondent financial institution.

The union sought a multi-branch bargaining unit combining full-time and part-time employees, while the employer argued for single-branch units and the separation of full-time and part-time employees.

The Board determined that single-branch units were appropriate and maintained its practice of separating full-time and part-time employees.

Certificates were issued for units where the union had over 55% support, representation votes were ordered where support was between 45% and 55%, and the application was dismissed for units with less than 45% support.

Union of Bank Employee (Ontario) Local 2104 v. National Trust, 1988 CanLII 3626

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 24, 1987

Robert Herman

OLRB0 cases1987–1999

G. O. Shamanski

OLRB0 cases1986–1994

Application to determine employee status adjourned sine die because the individual was terminated before filing.

The applicant union filed an application under section 106(2) of the Labour Relations Act to determine the employee status of an individual.

The respondent employer objected to the appointment of a Board Officer on the basis that the individual had been terminated for alleged theft prior to the filing of the application.

The Board held that since the individual was not employed by the respondent at the time the application was filed, there was no current question as to whether the person was an employee.

The Board cancelled the Board Officer's appointment and adjourned the matter sine die for one year, pending the resolution of the individual's employment status through adjudication or negotiation.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL:CIO-:CLC v. Royal Mattress Limited, 1987 CanLII 3158

Theodore Crljenica

Licence Surrendered - Administrative Surrender of Licence7 cases1987–1996

Robert Taylor

3 cases1987–2011

Ralph Ortlieb

Patrick F. Milloy

13 cases1986–2013

Larry Azzopard

James H. Menzies

R. R. Montague

Owen V. Gray

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 26, 1987

Applicant found to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act; representation vote directed.

The applicant union applied for certification and had to establish its status as a 'trade union' under the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer and objecting employees argued that the applicant was not a trade union because its constitution was not properly ratified by its members.

The Board found that the applicant, as a local chartered by the Canadian Labour Congress, was formed pursuant to an existing constitution, and the founding members agreed to be bound by it upon application for the charter.

The Board concluded the applicant is a trade union and directed a representation vote.

Windsor Mouldmakers Union Local 1680 C.L.C. v. Laval Tool & Mould Ltd., 1987 CanLII 3108

T. W. G. Pratt

J. C. G. Thomson

J. C. Fuller

2 cases1985–1987

C. C. White

6 cases1985–1991

R. R. Montague

R. M. Sloan

Owen V. Gray

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 10, 1987

Union certifiable despite local constitution's citizenship requirement because parent constitution's anti-discrimination clause prevailed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The Board raised the issue of whether section 13 of the Labour Relations Act prohibited certification because the applicant's local constitution restricted membership to citizens of the United States or Canada.

The Board found that while the local constitution contained a citizenship requirement, the parent union's constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of national origin and expressly prevailed over inconsistent local provisions.

Therefore, the applicant was not governed by a requirement restricting membership to citizens and was not prohibited from certification under section 13.

The matter was relisted to determine the appropriate bargaining unit.

Local Union No. 582, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Operators of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO v. The Corporation of the City of Brantford, 1987 CanLII 3090

W. H. Wightman

R. R. Montague

Owen V. Gray

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 9, 1987

Applicant union granted access to employee mailing lists for pre-hearing representation vote.

The applicant trade union requested copies of the mailing lists supplied by the respondent school boards to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for the purpose of a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Registrar referred the request to the Board.

The Board held that, in occasional teacher certification applications, the general rule is that all interested parties have access to mailing lists supplied to the Board by respondents.

Any request to deny such access must be raised at the meeting with the labour relations officer.

Since no such request was made, the Board directed the Registrar to supply the applicant with the requested mailing lists.

Ontario Catholic Occasional Teachers' Association v. The Lakehead District Roman Catholic Separate School Board, 1987 CanLII 3083

W. H. Wightman

R. R. Montague

Owen V. Gray

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 23, 1987

Pre-hearing representation vote directed for occasional teachers; ballot box sealed pending employer's objection.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of occasional teachers employed by the respondent school board.

The Board raised concerns about the adequacy of notice to employees and the applicant amended its application to request a pre-hearing representation vote.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken, defined the voting constituency, and ordered the respondent to provide the applicant with the names and addresses of the employees on the voters' list.

The Board also ordered the ballot box sealed pending a future hearing on the respondent's objection that the application should not be entertained due to a recently withdrawn prior application.

Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation v. Wellington County Board of Education, 1987 CanLII 3077

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 28, 1987

Ken Petryshen

OLRB0 cases1986–2026

D. G. Wozniak

OLRB0 cases1987–1995

OHSA reprisal complaint dismissed because worker already elected to settle discharge grievance under collective agreement.

The complainant, a part-time employee, was discharged after refusing to clean an employee washroom, claiming the smell would make him sick.

A grievance was filed and subsequently settled, with the complainant reinstated with seniority but without compensation.

Two months later, the complainant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) seeking lost earnings.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the OHSA complaint, finding that under section 24(2) of the OHSA, a worker must elect to proceed either before the Board or under the collective agreement.

Having elected to utilize the grievance procedure and having consented to a settlement, the complainant could not relitigate the propriety of his discharge before the Board.

Glen Cullen v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL:CIO:CLC:, Local 414, 1987 CanLII 3267

M. McKay

1 case1986–1986

J. J. Nyman

14 cases1980–1992

B. H. Stewart

5 cases1983–1986

R. R. Montague

Robert J. Herman

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

J. A. Ronson