W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 12, 1984

Foreman's conduct in portraying worker as a troublemaker for reporting safety violation constituted unlawful reprisal.

The complainant, a scoop operator, filed a complaint under section 24 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging he was penalized for reporting a serious safety violation (blasting without posting guards).

The Board found that the foreman's conduct in portraying the complainant as a troublemaker to his peers constituted intimidation and coercion in violation of the Act.

However, the Board dismissed the allegation that the complainant's subsequent transfer to another level was a reprisal, finding it was a legitimate response to a temporary redundancy.

The employer was directed to post a notice acknowledging the violation.

Bob Nault v. Inco Metals, 1984 CanLII 1094

T. F. Stone

9 cases1980–1991

R. E. Brown

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 11, 1984

Union certified without a vote; Board refused to exclude commission salesmen or entertain Charter objections.

The applicant union sought certification for full-time and part-time bargaining units at the respondent's retail store.

The employer and union agreed on the bargaining unit descriptions.

A group of employee objectors, representing commission salesmen, argued they should be excluded from the unit because they did not share a community of interest and did not wish to be represented by a union, citing the Charter of Rights freedom of association.

The Board held that excluding the salesmen would cause undue fragmentation and that the Charter did not require altering the appropriate bargaining unit.

The Board also dismissed unproven allegations of union misconduct during the organizing campaign.

As the union demonstrated membership support of over 55%, the Board granted certification without a vote.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL:CIO:CLC: v. Simpsons Limited, 1984 CanLII 1129

M. Levinson

3 cases1980–1984

J. A. Roffey

9 cases1980–1992

D. Churchill-Smith

7 cases1981–1992

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

W. H. Wightman

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 21, 1984

Bromley L. Armstrong

OLRB0 cases1984–1991

Union violated duty to bargain in good faith by insisting on national bargaining to impasse.

The employer filed a complaint alleging the union violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to negotiate a renewal of the collective agreement for the Kitchener plant unless bargaining was conducted on a national basis for a master agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's insistence on national bargaining to the point of impasse was inconsistent with the scheme of the Act, which limits bargaining rights to the provincial jurisdiction.

The Board directed the union to cease its violation and return to the bargaining table to negotiate a lawful collective agreement for the Kitchener plant.

Burns Meats Ltd. v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, 1984 CanLII 1005

Naomi Duguid

17 cases1981–1986

M. Longworth

3 cases1984–1985

Michelle O'Connor

Michael Gordon

40 cases1980–1991

Don Burshaw II

3 cases1983–1985

Carolyn Shaughnessy

3 cases1983–1985

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 14, 1984

Successor employer under section 63 must retain predecessor's employees in accordance with collective agreement.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent, a successor employer, refused to recognize the union, apply the collective agreement, or retain the predecessor's employees.

The Board held that under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, a successor employer inherits the predecessor's obligations, including the collective agreement.

The Board found that the predecessor's employees could not be terminated without just cause merely because of the impending sale, and the successor was obligated to retain them in accordance with the collective agreement's seniority provisions.

Service Employees International Union, Local 183 v. Daynes Health Care Limited, 1984 CanLII 1003

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 9, 1984

Board order filed in Supreme Court for enforcement after employer admitted non-compliance due to insolvency.

The complainant notified the Board that the respondent employer failed to comply with a previous Board order directing payment of compensation.

The Board notified the respondent employer, whose counsel admitted non-compliance due to insolvency.

The Board, satisfied that there was non-compliance, directed that its determination be filed with the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Ontario for enforcement pursuant to section 89(6) of the Labour Relations Act.

William Frederick Burrows v. Lloyd McHugh & Son Limited et al., 1984 CanLII 1009

Paul Falzone

9 cases1982–1999

C. E. Humphrey

23 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 28, 1984

A timely request for expedited statutory arbitration takes precedence over a collective agreement's arbitration process.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his jurisdiction to appoint a single arbitrator under section 45 of the Labour Relations Act.

The employer had requested an expedited arbitration under section 45 after the union had already initiated the tripartite arbitration process under the collective agreement.

The union argued that invoking the contractual process precluded the statutory expedited route.

The Board held that a timely request under section 45 takes precedence over the collective agreement's arbitration provisions, and therefore the Minister had jurisdiction to appoint the single arbitrator.

The City of Mississauga (Transit Department) v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local #1572, 1984 CanLII 969

T. Bright

Robert E. Salisbury

5 cases1984–2001

W. H. Wightman

G. Gail Brent

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 6, 1984

Board determines bargaining unit composition and orders representation vote for office, clerical, and technical employees.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of office, clerical, and technical employees.

The parties disputed the inclusion of several positions.

The Board excluded the executive secretaries to the Vice-Presidents of Research and Development and Manufacturing, finding they were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The Board also excluded product managers, the data processing manager, and the manager of laboratory/quality assurance, finding they exercised managerial functions.

The traffic manager, credit manager, and purchasing agent were included in the unit.

As the union filed membership evidence for less than 55% of the determined bargaining unit, the Board ordered a representation vote.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, (U.A.W.) v. Sternson Limited, 1984 CanLII 982

Sean F McGee

Raimo T. Heikkila

6 cases1981–1986

JohnP Nelligan

Bernard P Quinn

W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 11, 1984

Union decertification application dismissed; petition voluntariness undermined by involvement of employee with management ties.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The sole issue was whether the petition in support of the application represented the voluntary wishes of the employees.

The Board found that the petition was spearheaded by an employee who was a member of the religious order that managed the employer and who had recently stepped down from a management position.

Given this individual's unique status and close ties to management, the Board concluded that the petition's voluntariness was critically undermined.

The application was dismissed.

The Employees of Patro d'Ottawa (Patro Ottawa) (Elaine Deschamps) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, 1984 CanLII 993

Steven Barrett

10 cases1984–1999

Raimo T. Heikkila

6 cases1981–1986

Michael Zangari

2 cases1984–1991

Michael Mitchell

12 cases1980–1996

Lou Popovich

2 cases1984–1986

L. Girones

G. R. Pope

Gary Bouchard

2 cases1984–1986

Alex Ahee

8 cases1983–1999

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 8, 1984

W.F. Rutherford

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

Intervenor denied status as agreement void for employer support; adjournment pending judicial review refused.

The applicant union sought relief under sections 1(4), 63, and 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

Local 800 sought status to intervene based on a maintenance agreement with the respondent employer.

The Board found that the maintenance agreement was signed when there were no employees at work and Local 800 did not subsequently supply members of its own union for all covered trades, constituting employer support under section 48(a) of the Act.

Consequently, the agreement was not a valid collective agreement, and Local 800 was denied status to intervene.

Local 800 and the respondents requested an adjournment to challenge the ruling in court.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding that the balance of convenience favoured continuing the proceedings to avoid prejudice to the applicant.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1687 v. F.D.V. Construction Ltd., 1984 CanLII 989

Mark Contini

25 cases1981–2023

John Fuller

4 cases1984–1995

David I. Bloom

11 cases1983–2000

W. H. Wightman

R. 0. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–1999

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 19, 1984

Successor employer application dismissed; acquisition of lease and equipment after 18-month closure not a sale of business.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the respondent was a successor employer under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent had acquired an assignment of a lease and purchased some equipment from a Dominion store that had been closed for a year and a half.

The Board found that due to the long hiatus between the closure of the predecessor and the opening of the respondent's business, any goodwill had dissipated.

The transaction was characterized as a mere transfer of surplus assets rather than the sale of a business.

The application was dismissed.

Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union, Local 414 v. Ancaster Supermarkets Limited, 1984 CanLII 908

N. Smith

22 cases1984–2026

J. Redshaw

5 cases1980–1985

John Wissent

E. Schroeder

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

A. P Tarasuk

17 cases1984–2000

A. F Amis

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 21, 1984

Union certified; Board affirms construction industry rule counting only employees at work on application date.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The employer argued that employees absent on the application date due to hunting should be included in the bargaining unit count.

The Board rejected this, affirming its long-standing practice of only counting employees actually at work on the application date in the construction industry.

A group of objecting employees filed a petition but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing to provide required evidence of its voluntariness, instead requesting an adjournment.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting the prejudice caused by delay in construction industry certifications, and granted the union's application for certification based on its documentary evidence of membership.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Smiths Construction Company Arnprior Limited, 1984 CanLII 942

William Kaplan

3 cases1984–1996

Ronald Gruber

4 cases1983–1987

Paul J.J. Cavalluzzo

In Private Practice61 cases1984–2026

Michael Gordon

40 cases1980–1991

David I. Bloom

11 cases1983–2000

W. H. Wightman

George W. Adams

B.K. Lee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 16, 1984

Damages for loss of opportunity to negotiate plant closure assessed at 25% of non-union severance differential.

Following a finding that the employer committed an unfair labour practice by failing to disclose a planned plant closure during collective bargaining, the Board held a hearing to assess damages for the union's loss of opportunity to negotiate.

The Board found that the union would likely have achieved improved severance and priority hiring rights had the closure been disclosed.

The Board awarded damages to affected employees equal to 25% of the difference between the severance they received and the severance paid to non-bargaining unit employees, along with priority hiring rights at other plants.

International Woodworkers of America Local 2-69 v. Consolidated Bathurst Packaging Ltd., 1984 CanLII 929

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

OLRB0 cases1981–2025

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 14, 1984

Union certification application dismissed due to prohibited employer support and inherent conflict of interest.

The applicant union sought certification to represent employees of a non-profit training school.

The evidence revealed that the union and the employer were inextricably intertwined, with the union's president also serving as the president of the employer's board of directors, and the union's president having actively encouraged the employees to join the union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the inherent conflict of interest and the employer's participation in the union's administration violated section 13 of the Labour Relations Act, which prohibits the certification of a trade union that has received employer support.

Seafarers' International Union of Canada v. Seafarers' Training Institute, 1984 CanLII 941

Sheila Block

4 cases1984–1993

Rod MacKenzie

J. Vincent Toolsie

Harvey A. Beresford

10 cases1982–1997

W. H. Wightman

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 14, 1984

Union breached duty of fair representation by perfunctorily acquiescing to employee's discharge for innocent absenteeism.

The complainant, an employee with over nine years of seniority and a history of absenteeism due to injuries, was discharged by the employer after a medical assessment indicated he could not perform his regular job and no light duty work was available.

The complainant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to advocate for him or file a grievance regarding his discharge.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union's perfunctory acquiescence to the discharge, without considering the arbitral jurisprudence on innocent absenteeism or the possibility of preserving his employment status, constituted arbitrary conduct.

The Board ordered the union to file and process a discharge grievance to arbitration at its own expense.

Vujicic v. The Schneider Employees Association, 1984 CanLII 936

John Fedyna

James E. Bowden

15 cases1980–2014

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

OLRB0 cases1981–2025

R. O. MacDowell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 12, 1984

Unfair labour practice complaint deferred to arbitration due to substantial overlap with pending grievances.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application for consent to prosecute the employer, arising from the reorganization of the employer's business.

The union had also filed grievances under the collective agreement which were proceeding to arbitration.

The Board deferred the unfair labour practice complaint to arbitration, noting the substantial overlap in issues, evidence, and remedies, and retained jurisdiction to ensure the matter proceeds expeditiously.

The Board also adjourned the application for consent to prosecute.

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1854 v. Country Place Nursing Homes Limited, 1984 CanLII 930

W. H. Wightman

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 7, 1984

D. E. Franks

OLRB0 cases1980–1987

Board revokes six-month bar on certification applications to allow union to apply during statutory open period.

The applicant trade union requested that the Board reconsider and remove a six-month bar on certification applications imposed in a previous decision dismissing its application.

The applicant argued that the bar would prevent it from applying during the statutory 'open' period in the two months preceding April 30, 1984, as prescribed by section 146(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The interveners opposed the request, citing the Board's normal policy of imposing a bar to allow a 'cooling off' period and prevent repetitious applications.

The Board found that neither policy reason applied, as the open period was two years after the last one, and the continuous nature of the proceedings did not make a new application repetitious.

The Board revoked the bar to preserve the employees' right to be involved in certification applications during the statutorily protected open period.

Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons International Association of the United States and Canada, Local Union No. 124 v. Duron Ottawa Ltd., 1984 CanLII 932

S. B. D. WahI

11 cases1980–1994

R. Ross Dunsmore

11 cases1982–2011

Richard P. Lawlor

W. H. Wightman

George W. Adams

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 27, 1984

F. S. Cooke

OLRB0 cases1982–1984

Grievances over refusal to hire dismissed; employer reasonably deemed grievor a security risk.

The union filed grievances alleging that the employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to hire the grievor, a union president, at various non-nuclear construction sites.

The employer refused to hire the grievor on the basis that he was a security risk, citing his 1975 criminal conviction for conspiracy to export arms and a 1982 arrest at the U.S. border involving the smuggling of aliens.

The Board dismissed the grievances, finding that the union failed to prove the employer acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, or in bad faith in assessing the grievor's reliability.

The Board also held that even if the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms applied to the employer's employment decisions, the refusal to hire based on security concerns related to criminal conduct did not violate the grievor's constitutional rights.

I.B.E.W. Electrical Power Systems Construction Council of Ontario v. Ontario Hydro, 1984 CanLII 1050

R. Tersigni

2 cases1983–1984

R. A. Werry

38 cases1980–1994

J. Tascona

3 cases1984–1989

F. Krause

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

A. Glen

W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 23, 1984

F. S. Cooke

OLRB0 cases1982–1984

Employer's long-standing conduct and adherence to collective agreement established voluntary recognition and membership in employers' organization.

The applicant trade union brought an application under sections 1(4) and 63 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming Ermac Power & Control Ltd. was a successor or related employer to Twin Electric.

Twin Electric argued it was never bound by the collective agreement as it had never formally joined the employers' organization.

The Board found that Twin Electric had participated in the benefits of full membership for years, abided by the collective agreement, and behaved as a member.

The Board held that the first collective agreement entered into on Twin's behalf conferred voluntary recognition, and bargaining rights continued under successive agreements.

The matter was directed to be listed for continuation on the successor and related employer issues.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 303 v. Twin Electric and Ermac Power & Control Ltd., 1984 CanLII 1051

E. Rovet

9 cases1980–1988

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

B. L. Armstrong