R. R. Montague

M. L. Tims

Martin Sarra

2 cases1987–1989

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

G. Bell

C. G. Riggs

17 cases1980–1998

A. Waldron

A. Schiavello

R. R. Montague

Ken Petryshen

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 22, 1987

D. A. MacDonald

OLRB0 cases1982–1994

Union found to have abandoned bargaining rights for part-time employees through years of disuse.

The complainant union filed a complaint alleging contraventions of the Labour Relations Act.

The central issue was whether the union had abandoned its bargaining rights for part-time employees.

Although the original 1974 certificate and successive collective agreements did not explicitly exclude part-time employees, the collective agreement had never been applied to them.

The union had not collected dues from part-time employees or applied seniority, grievance, or health and welfare provisions to them.

The Board found that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights for part-time employees through disuse and failure to assert those rights over many years.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union and its Local 565 v. York-Finch General Hospital, 1987 CanLII 3259

R. R. Montague

R. M. Sloan

OLRB0 cases1986–2000

Owen V. Gray

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 6, 1987

Subsidized employees under a governmental training program included in the appropriate bargaining units for certification.

The applicant union applied for certification of employees at the respondent's home for the aged.

The parties agreed on two appropriate bargaining units (full-time and part-time/students) but disputed the inclusion of persons employed under a governmental training program.

The respondent argued these subsidized employees lacked a community of interest with other employees.

The Board found that subsidized employees perform similar work to unsubsidized employees and that their interests are best addressed by including them in the bargaining units.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining units and directed that certificates issue to the applicant.

London and District Service Workers' Union, Local 220, SEIU, AEL, CIO, CLC v. The Corporation of the County of Grey operating as Grey County Homes for the Aged, 1986 CanLII 1663

R. R. Montague

Ken Petryshen

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 2, 1987

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

Board clarifies voter eligibility rules for representation votes involving temporary hires and inter-unit transfers.

Following a representation vote for full-time and part-time bargaining units, objecting employees challenged the voter eligibility of several individuals.

The Board applied its standard two-pronged eligibility rule, requiring an employee to be in the bargaining unit both on the date the vote is ordered and the date it is taken.

The Board found that temporary employees were eligible, but employees hired after the vote was ordered were not.

Furthermore, employees transferred from the part-time to the full-time unit between the two dates were ineligible to vote in either unit.

The Board upheld the full-time unit vote and certified the union, but directed a new vote for the part-time unit due to the participation of ineligible voters.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Lapalme Nursing Home Ltd., 1987 CanLII 3039

R. M. Parry

16 cases1980–1993

R. Joe

R. James

Larry Todd

28 cases1987–2018

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

Jack Whitehome

W. H. Wightman

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 24, 1987

Patricia Hughes

OLRB0 cases1986–1991

Board accepts parties' agreed bargaining unit description excluding technical employees and appoints officer for disputed individuals.

The applicant union applied for certification and agreed with the respondent employer on a bargaining unit description for office and clerical employees that excluded technical employees.

Because this departed from the Board's usual 'office, clerical and technical' description, a hearing was held to determine its appropriateness.

The Board emphasized its statutory obligation to determine the appropriate unit regardless of the parties' agreement, but ultimately accepted the proposed unit as appropriate in the circumstances.

The Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the duties of several individuals whose inclusion in the unit remained in dispute.

United Steelworkers of America v. Haley Industries Limited, 1987 CanLII 3035

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 10, 1987

J. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1987

Harry Freedman

OLRB0 cases1984–2001

Request for reconsideration to issue Minutes of Settlement as a Board decision dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that had set out Minutes of Settlement and terminated the proceedings.

The applicant sought to have the Minutes issued as a decision of the Board rather than terminating the application.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the parties had not requested specific orders or declarations, nor had they stipulated the factual elements necessary for the Board to make such orders.

The Board varied its decision only to note the signatory on behalf of the applicant.

Toronto-Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council v. Elmont Construction Limited, 1987 CanLII 3025

L. N. Gottheil

24 cases1986–2012

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

Derrick Manson

R. R. Montague

Robert J. Herman

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 4, 1987

Complaint against union dismissed as internal union affairs and ICI strike votes fall outside Board's general jurisdiction.

The complainants alleged that the respondent union and its officials violated sections 3, 68, 70, and 72(5) of the Labour Relations Act by conducting union meetings unconstitutionally, disciplining the complainants, and denying them the right to vote in a strike vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the section 68 complaint because it did not involve representation with an employer.

The section 72(5) complaint was dismissed because section 149a governed ICI sector strike votes and required complaints to be made to the Minister within ten days.

The section 70 and section 3 complaints were dismissed for failing to plead a prima facie case of intimidation or coercion.

Michael Connolly and Ucal Powell v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 1987 CanLII 3012

Stephen Wahl

16 cases1987–2017

Murray Gold

16 cases1986–2013

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 3, 1987

J. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1981–1987

Ian C. Springate

OLRB0 cases1983–1989

Board grants union consent to prosecute employer for breaching a prior access order.

The applicant union sought the Board's consent to institute a prosecution against the respondent employer for allegedly denying a union official access to the respondent's premises on January 21 and 22, 1987, in breach of a prior Board order issued under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The Board found the applicant established a prima facie case of the alleged breaches and granted consent to prosecute.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Gaston H. Poulin Contractor Limited, 1987 CanLII 3006

Murray Gold

16 cases1986–2013

Mary Ellen Cummings

6 cases1986–1989

W. H. Wightman

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 30, 1987

G. T. Surdykowski

OLRB0 cases1986–1999

Application for certification dismissed for insufficient membership support; Board abandons 'representative period' test for construction industry.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of painters and drywall tapers employed by the respondent.

The parties disputed the employment status of two individuals, whom the respondent claimed were independent contractors, and the inclusion of three others based on the work they performed.

The Board applied the fourfold and organizational tests to find the two individuals were employees.

The Board also found the other three individuals were properly included in the bargaining unit as they spent a majority of their time doing bargaining unit work on the application date.

The Board announced it would no longer use a 'representative period' to determine bargaining unit inclusion in the construction industry, restricting the inquiry to the application date.

As the union had less than forty-five percent membership support in the resulting unit, the application was dismissed.

International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades - Local Union 1891 v. Gilvesy Enterprises Inc., 1987 CanLII 3007

Stewart D. Saxe

11 cases1982–1999

R. A. Hubert

6 cases1984–1987

Paul Cavalluzzo

31 cases1981–2023

H. A. Beresford

14 cases1980–1989

David Cote

6 cases1987–2024

Cheryl Elliot

2 cases1985–1987

Bernie Hanson

9 cases1983–2016

Barry G. Puckett

W. H. Wightman

R. R. Montague

Owen V. Gray

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 23, 1987

Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as counterpetitions reduced support below the 45 percent threshold.

The applicant sought a declaration terminating the respondent union's bargaining rights.

Although 15 of 30 employees initially signed a petition against the union, two subsequently signed a counterpetition reaffirming their support before the assessment date.

The Board held that it must consider the last voluntary signification of wishes as of the assessment date.

Consequently, the applicant failed to demonstrate that at least 45 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit no longer wished to be represented by the union.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

Alex Nigro v. Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, 1987 CanLII 2994

Marlene Del Pino

Laurence C. Arnold

24 cases1981–2001

Ian Roland

41 cases1980–2021

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 12, 1987

Patricia Hughes

OLRB0 cases1986–1991

G. 0. Shamanski

OLRB0 cases1986–1995

Board declined to revoke union certification despite applicant's distribution of a fabricated legal opinion before vote.

Following a successful representation vote and certification of the Canadian Paperworkers Union, the intervener union requested that the Board revoke the certificate or order a new vote.

The intervener alleged that the applicant union distributed a forged legal opinion to employees prior to the vote.

The Board found that while a union representative had fabricated the letter, it did not constitute fraud under section 58 of the Labour Relations Act because it was not a representation made to the Board.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision or order a new vote, concluding that the contents of the letter did not deprive employees of their ability to exercise their critical faculties.

Canadian Paperworkers Union v. Great West Timber Limited, 1987 CanLII 2985

P. Kane

W. H. Wightman

S. A. Tacon

OLRB0 cases1984–1991

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 9, 1987

Employer committed unfair labour practices by failing to bargain in good faith and interfering with union.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices by failing to bargain in good faith and interfering with the union's representational rights.

The employer delayed negotiations, cancelled meetings, and a member of management attended and disrupted a union meeting.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the employer violated sections 15, 64, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered extensive remedial relief, including directing the employer to prepare a collective agreement proposal, participate in mediation, provide the union with access to the workplace and employee lists, and pay monetary losses.

The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, General Workers' Union, Local 1030 v. Morewood Industries Limited, 1987 CanLII 2991

Edward V. Johnson

5 cases1982–1989

R. R. Montague

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 7, 1986

Judith McCormack

OLRB0 cases1986–1995

F. W. Murray

OLRB0 cases1980–1988

Board orders separate part-time bargaining units to mirror existing full-time units in nursing and rest homes.

The applicant union sought certification for a unit of part-time employees of the respondent nursing and rest home.

The parties disputed whether there should be one inclusive bargaining unit or separate units for the nursing home and rest home.

The Board found that while the employees shared a community of interest, the Board's policy of having part-time units 'mirror' full-time units favoured separate units, as the parties had previously agreed to separate units for full-time employees.

The Board ordered separate bargaining units and issued certificates for both.

Christian Labour Association of Canada v. Geri-Care Nursing Home of Caressant Care Limited, 1986 CanLII 1433

Win. S. Challis

2 cases1980–1986

Win. R. Patchett

R. P. Armstrong

Robert McKay

17 cases1984–2001

Richard Nixon

23 cases1983–2016

R. C. Fihion

R. A. Spence

3 cases1985–1986

P. D. Jackson

Martin Rosenbaum

11 cases1986–2003

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

James E. Bowden

16 cases1980–2014

James Carpick

D. G. Collins

3 cases1986–1986

Cohn D. McKinnon

2 cases1986–1987

C. E. Humphrey

23 cases1980–2001

Barb Walter

R. R. Montague

Owen V. Gray

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 1, 1986

F. C. Burnet

OLRB0 cases1984–1990

Motion to add corporate principals as related employers denied; section 1(4) not for deep pockets.

The applicant trade unions sought to add Conrad Black and Hollinger Inc. as respondents to related employer and unfair labour practice applications involving Willett Foods Limited and various franchisees.

A previous panel of the Board had already dismissed a similar request by one of the unions to add Black and a predecessor corporation.

The Board applied principles analogous to res judicata and issue estoppel, finding that the new allegations did not materially alter the basis of the claims.

The Board reaffirmed that section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act is not intended merely to provide access to 'deep pockets' absent allegations of a transfer of work or other attempts to frustrate collective bargaining.

The request to add the respondents was denied, and the complaints against them were dismissed.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union - Local 414 v. Willett Foods Limited, 1986 CanLII 1441

Wm. S. Challis

Wm. R. Patchett

R. P. Armstrong

Robert McKay

17 cases1984–2001

Richard Nixon

23 cases1983–2016

R. C. Filion

29 cases1980–1996

R. A. Spence

3 cases1985–1986

P. D. Jackson

Martin Rosenbaum

11 cases1986–2003

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

James E. Bowden

16 cases1980–2014

James Carpick

D. G. Collins

3 cases1986–1986

Colin D. McKinnon

3 cases1982–1990

C. E. Humphrey

23 cases1980–2001

Barb Walter

R. R. Montague

Owen V. Gray

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 30, 1986

F. C. Burnet

OLRB0 cases1984–1990

Board issues procedural directions for service and adding respondents in complex multi-party proceeding.

In a complex proceeding involving nearly two hundred parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions regarding the service of documents and the addition of respondents.

The Board ruled that service on a party's agent or counsel would be sufficient, and established a procedure for amending applications to add respondents by analogy to the Board's Rules of Procedure, requiring the applicant to provide amended filings and notice to all parties.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union - Local 414 v. Willett Foods Limited, 1986 CanLII 1381

R. A. Werry

38 cases1980–1994

E. G. Posen

8 cases1981–1987

R. R. Montague

Ken Petryshen

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 19, 1986

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Request for reconsideration dismissed due to union's failure to file timely objections to representation vote.

The applicant union requested the Board to reconsider its decision dismissing an application for certification following a representation vote.

The union alleged employer misconduct based on a letter distributed prior to the vote, but failed to file its objection within the prescribed time limits despite having knowledge of the letter before the deadline.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for expedition and certainty in its procedures, and finding no exceptional circumstances to justify the untimely objection.

Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink Workers v. Kitchener Beverages Limited, 1986 CanLII 1376

Glen Chochla

In Private Practice11 cases1986–2024

Alick Ryder

33 cases1980–2011

R. R. Montague

R. J. Gallivan

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

Ken Petryshen