W. H. Wightman

H. Kobryn

D. E. Franks

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 12, 1982

Union directed to issue work permit to directly hired first-year apprentice under collective agreement.

The applicant employer referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the respondent union improperly refused to issue a work permit to a newly hired first-year apprentice.

The employer had hired the apprentice directly, relying on clause 2.05(a) of the collective agreement.

The Board, following a previous decision interpreting the same clause, found that the employer was entitled to hire the new apprentice since its shop ratio was in order.

Consequently, the Board directed the union to supply the apprentice with a regular work permit without delay.

The Master Insulators' Association of Ontario Inc. and Misco Insulation Company Limited v. International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95, 1982 CanLII 1011

R. C. Sills

2 cases1982–1983

Keith Billings

10 cases1980–2000

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

A. M. Minsky

94 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

N. B. Satterfield

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 10, 1982

Employer bound by deemed recognition must enforce union security clause after giving employees notice to join.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board alleging the respondent employer violated the provincial agreement by employing non-union sheet metal workers.

The Board previously found the respondent was bound by the provincial agreement pursuant to the deemed recognition provisions of section 137(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

In this continuation, the Board held that the respondent breached the union security provisions of the agreement.

The Board determined that damages should flow from January 15, 1982, the date the respondent received notice of the grievance.

Regarding the non-union employees, the Board found they were entitled to reasonable notice of their obligation to join the union.

The Board directed the respondent to discharge the employees if they failed to apply for union membership within five days of the decision.

Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' Conference v. Culliton Brothers Limited, 1982 CanLII 990

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

B.K. Lee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 29, 1982

Application for reconsideration of certification dismissed where employer sought to resile from settlement agreement.

The employer applied for reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the union, arguing that it had entered into a settlement agreement regarding the status of its taxi drivers without adequate legal advice.

The Board dismissed the application, noting that the employer was initially represented by experienced counsel who had raised the relevant issues, but the employer subsequently chose to proceed without counsel and settle the matter.

The Board held that allowing a party to resile from a settlement agreement months later due to an alleged lack of legal advice would undermine the settlement process and prejudice the union.

Ontario Taxi Association 1688 C.L.C. v. Maple Leaf Taxi Company, 1982 CanLII 1021

T. Spada

3 cases1981–1982

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

F. Kovacs

B. Fishbein

68 cases1980–1996

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 25, 1982

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Husband and wife superintendent team both found to be employees in the same bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of cleaning and maintenance employees.

The respondent employer argued that only the husband of a husband-and-wife superintendent team was an employee, which would result in an impermissible one-person bargaining unit.

Alternatively, the employer argued the wife was a part-time employee who should be in a separate unit.

The Board found that both spouses were employees, as they were hired as a team, shared duties, and compensation was paid directly to the wife.

The Board also rejected the argument for a separate part-time unit, finding it inappropriate to separate the spouses into different units.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Wickford Holdings Limited, 1982 CanLII 1028

Owen V Gray

4 cases1982–1983

Jeffery Egner

James Kelleher

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

Kevin M. Burkett

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 25, 1982

Board finds anti-union layoffs but holds duty to bargain with incumbent continues during displacement application.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer laid off four employees for anti-union reasons and unlawfully continued to bargain with the incumbent union.

The Board found that the layoffs were motivated by anti-union considerations, as they occurred out of seniority order and shortly after the employees supported the applicant.

However, the Board held that the employer's continued bargaining with the incumbent union did not violate the statutory freeze or constitute unlawful interference, adopting the approach that the duty to bargain continues during a displacement application.

The Board declined to certify the applicant without a vote under section 8, preserving the presumption of the incumbent's continuing majority status, but ordered compensation for the laid-off employees and gave the applicant the option of relying on the initial representation vote or requesting a new mailed ballot vote.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 1687 v. Crowle Electrical Limited, 1982 CanLII 1018

R. E. Shibley, Q.C.

Cathy Lace

17 cases1982–2013

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

M. G. Picher

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 14, 1982

Board provides written reasons for unfair labour practice remedial order as required by statute.

The union requested written reasons for a remedial order previously issued by the Board.

The employer argued the Board was not obligated to provide them.

The Board held that section 17 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act requires it to provide written reasons when requested by a party.

The Board briefly outlined its reasons for the remedial order, finding that the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by intending not to make a collective agreement to let bargaining rights lapse, failing to reinstate striking employees who unconditionally applied to return to work, and threatening reprisal against witnesses who testified before the Board.

Office and Professional Employees International Union v. Union Du Canada Assurance - Vie, 1982 CanLII 1027

Steven J. McCormack

5 cases1981–1987

Raj Anand

54 cases1981–2017

F. R. von Veh

5 cases1980–2000

Donald D. White

5 cases1982–2001

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

M. G. Picher

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 12, 1982

The one-year protection period against termination of bargaining rights commences from the final certificate, not interim certification.

The applicant filed an application for the termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had received interim certification on May 25, 1981, and a final certificate on June 30, 1981.

The application was filed on June 9, 1982.

The issue was whether the one-year period under section 57(1) of the Labour Relations Act, during which a union is protected from termination applications, runs from the date of interim certification or the final certificate.

The Board held that the one-year period commences on the date the final certificate is issued, as interim certification does not finally determine the bargaining unit.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as untimely.

W. Thomas Arnold v. Retail Commercial and Industrial Union, Local 206, 1982 CanLII 1016

J. Shenkman

J. Drake

E. L. Stringer, Q.C.

9 cases1980–1992

B. Michika

B. Crosby

2 cases1982–1983

W. H. Wightman

M. J. Fenwick

OLRB0 cases1980–1982

M. G. Picher

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 17, 1982

Air freight forwarding business found to be a local undertaking within provincial labour relations jurisdiction.

The union applied for certification of the respondent's employees.

The respondent argued its air freight forwarding business fell under federal jurisdiction as an integral part of interprovincial and international air transport.

The Board held that the respondent's business was a purely local undertaking, as it merely contracted with air carriers on behalf of customers and did not provide interprovincial transportation itself.

The Board assumed jurisdiction.

In an addendum, the Board found an employee petition opposing certification was voluntary and ordered a representation vote.

International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Airgo Agency Limited, 1982 CanLII 1029

R. M. Parry

16 cases1980–1993

Lorne Richmond

21 cases1982–2022

J. Sack, Q.C.

6 cases1982–1984

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 9, 1982

R. D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1980–1993

B. L. Armstrong

OLRB0 cases1980–1997

Employers committed unfair labour practices by refusing to disclose wage rates and bargaining directly with striking employees.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employers committed unfair labour practices during a lawful strike.

The union claimed the employers bargained in bad faith by refusing to disclose the actual wage rates of bargaining unit employees and by bargaining directly with striking employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employers violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by withholding the wage information, which was necessary for rational and informed collective bargaining.

The Board also found that one of the employers, Globe, violated sections 64 and 67(1) by engaging in direct negotiations with a group of employees, thereby undermining the union's exclusive bargaining rights.

The Board ordered the employers to cease direct bargaining, disclose the wage rates, and resume mediation.

United Steelworkers of America and its Local 7291 v. Globe Spring & Cushion Co. Ltd., 1982 CanLII 1036

W. H. Wightman

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 20, 1982

B. L. Armstrong

OLRB0 cases1980–1997

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

The applicant union applied for certification of an office and clerical bargaining unit.

The parties disputed the inclusion of four employees.

The Board found that a senior data entry operator and a purchasing agent did not exercise managerial functions under s. 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act and were included in the unit.

The Board also found that two lab reporters shared a community of interest with the technical unit rather than the office and clerical unit, and excluded them.

A representation vote was ordered.

Service Employees Union, Local 204 v. Extendicare Diagnostic Services, 1982 CanLII 954

W James Stuckey

Peter Hitchen

2 cases1981–1982

L. C. Arnold

38 cases1980–1992

lan Roland

G. Balanzin

W. H. Wightman

Ian Springate

OLRB0 cases1981–1988

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 18, 1982

Segregated ballots of construction workers not at work on the voter eligibility date were excluded.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, a pre-hearing representation vote was held where six individuals cast segregated ballots.

The Board determined that one individual was a field superintendent exercising managerial functions and thus not an employee under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board further held that the remaining five individuals, who were not actually at work on the terminal date fixed for determining voter eligibility due to layoff or vacation, were not eligible to vote.

The Board reaffirmed its practice in the construction industry of only counting persons actually at work on the relevant date as employees.

The segregated ballots were not counted.

Labourers' International Union of North America v. Diplock Durable Floor Company Limited, 1982 CanLII 952

R. F. Filion

Martin Levinson

15 cases1980–1987

J. Chetti

Brain Herlich

11 cases1982–1988

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 16, 1982

Board upholds representation vote despite isolated anonymous phone calls during the silent period.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

The respondent employer alleged that the union violated the 72-hour 'silent period' prior to the vote through telephone calls made to employees.

The Board found that while two anonymous calls constituted electioneering, they were isolated incidents not attributable to the union, which had taken reasonable precautions to ensure compliance.

The Board concluded the breaches were not widespread or serious enough to influence the outcome of the vote, declined to direct a new vote, and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local lOOOA AFL-CIO-CLC v. Keele-Wilson Supermarket Limited c.o.b. as Tops Food Market, 1982 CanLII 961

Paul S. Jarvis

10 cases1982–2009

Michael G. Horan

22 cases1980–2000

W. H. Wightman

Stewart Cooke

OLRB0 cases1982–1983

M. G. Mitchnick

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 30, 1982

Employee petition for decertification found voluntary despite employer's past unfair labour practices; representation vote ordered.

The applicant employee applied for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the respondent trade union.

The union argued that the employee petition supporting the application was not voluntary, citing the employer's past unfair labour practices and the recent layoff of employees.

The Board found that sufficient time had passed since the employer's prior misconduct to neutralize its effect, and there was no evidence of recent employer interference.

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

Robert Watson v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America (UE), 1982 CanLII 941

L. C. Arnold

38 cases1980–1992

Joseph Carrier

6 cases1980–1988

Edward T. McDermott

5 cases1980–1995

Daniel Ublansky

11 cases1981–2005

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 22, 1982

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

D. B. Archer

OLRB0 cases1980–1982

Related employer application dismissed; subcontracting arrangement did not warrant piercing the corporate veil.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that Ethyl Canada, Inc. and F.I.R.M., a mechanical contractor, constituted a single employer.

The union alleged that Ethyl was using F.I.R.M. to erode the bargaining unit's work jurisdiction over supplementary maintenance.

The Board found that while the two entities had a close relationship, F.I.R.M. was not a mere instrumentality of Ethyl, and Ethyl had a long-standing practice of subcontracting such work.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to issue a related employer declaration, noting the potential for jurisdictional disputes and the union's delay in bringing the application.

Energy and Chemical Workers Union, Local 300 v. Ethyl Canada, Inc., 1982 CanLII 943

W. H. Wightman

Ian Springate

OLRB0 cases1981–1988

B.K. Lee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 20, 1982

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed as the union's refusal to assist lacked evidence of bad faith.

The complainant, a spare power house operator, alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to assist him in obtaining a permanent power house operator position.

The complainant lacked the newly established qualifications for the position and had a history of poor judgment and safety violations in his spare role.

The Board found that the union was aware of these issues and that the complainant failed to establish a prima facie case that the union's decision not to support his grievance was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The complaint was dismissed.

Melvin Haukaas v. Local #1744. (Fort Frances) International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 1982 CanLII 926

M. Quinn

H. Martin

2 cases1980–1982

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

E. Woerner

E.A. Ford

6 cases1980–1986

W. H. Wightman

M.A. Ross

OLRB0 cases1980–1986

D. E. Franks

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 30, 1982

Grievance dismissed; union estopped from enforcing strict agreement language due to accepted past practice.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging the employer violated the collective agreement regarding commuting and travel allowances.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union was estopped from bringing the grievance due to a long-standing past practice of paying mileage rather than board allowance for Timmins area residents on local jobs.

The Board applied the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, finding that the union had accepted this practice during the renegotiation of the collective agreement.

The grievance was dismissed.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Employer Bargaining Agency and its Affiliate Comstock International Ltd., 1982 CanLII 875

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

D. E. Franks

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 30, 1982

Reconsideration denied; Board may refuse to enforce a collective agreement obtained through an unlawful strike.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that declined to enforce a collective agreement under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union argued the Board exceeded its jurisdiction and applied equitable principles it did not possess.

The Board denied the request, clarifying that it did not strike down the agreement using equitable relief, but rather refused to recognize a collective bargaining relationship because the agreement was obtained through an unlawful strike intended to bypass the Act's certification procedures.

One Board member dissented.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Traugott Construction Limited, 1982 CanLII 889

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

R. Sutherland

3 cases1982–2023

H. Stewart

4 cases1982–1983

C. E. Humphrey

23 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 24, 1982

Ian Springate

OLRB0 cases1981–1988

Union certification application dismissed after related companies declared a single employer, diluting union support.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of Harwill Originals Limited.

The respondents argued that Harwill and Rosengarten Freedman Knitting Co. Ltd. should be treated as a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the two companies were under common control and direction and engaged in related activities.

To avoid undue fragmentation, the Board declared them a single employer and combined their employees into one bargaining unit.

Because the union had membership support of less than forty-five per cent in the combined unit, the application for certification was dismissed.

International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Harwill Originals Limited, 1982 CanLII 878

W. J. MacNaughton

T. M. Park

Mrs. B. J. Fickert

J. H. Bird

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

D. E. Franks