W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 14, 1982

Pamela C. Picher

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as counter-petition reduced opposition below 45% threshold.

The applicant applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights and filed a statement of desire signed by over 45% of the bargaining unit.

The union subsequently filed a counter-petition reaffirming support, signed by several employees who had signed the initial statement.

The Board held that the counter-petition was relevant and represented the last voluntary expression of the employees' wishes prior to the terminal date.

As the counter-petition reduced the number of employees opposing the union to below 45%, the application for termination was dismissed.

John D. Weed v. Local #419 Teamsters, 1982 CanLII 871

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

M. J. Fenwick

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 11, 1982

Board declined to impose a bar on future certification applications after union withdrew its second application.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its second application for certification.

The respondent employer requested that the Board impose a bar on future applications pursuant to section 103 of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that the employees had been subjected to an atmosphere of certification and relying on a Board Officer's alleged statement that a bar would apply.

The Board dismissed the application for certification but declined to impose a bar, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify departing from its usual practice of not imposing a bar after a second unsuccessful application that did not proceed to a hearing.

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Sonora Cosmetics Inc., 1982 CanLII 886

John McNamee

9 cases1982–2000

Hart M. Rossman, Q. C.

Don Robinson

D. McDermott

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 10, 1982

Ian Springate

OLRB0 cases1981–1988

Union certified without a vote; employee statement of desire rejected as involuntary due to management influence.

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

The union filed membership evidence for more than 55% of the employees.

A group of employees filed a statement of desire opposing the certification, which included signatures from employees who had previously signed union cards.

The Board found that the statement of desire was not voluntary, as it was circulated by lead hands and a close friend of management shortly after management held a meeting suggesting that unionization could lead to the loss of benefits and lay-offs.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and issued a certificate to the applicant.

One Board member dissented.

Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers, Local 304 v. Schenker Warehousing a Division of Schenker of Canada Limited, 1982 CanLII 884

R. J. Marshall

H. F. Orser

D. I. Wakely

11 cases1980–1989

W. H. Wightman

R. D. Howe

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 4, 1982

B. L. Armstrong

OLRB0 cases1980–1997

Union certified without a representation vote after counter-petitions found to be voluntary.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A group of employees filed a petition opposing certification, but the union subsequently filed counter-petitions reaffirming support for the union.

The Board found the counter-petitions to be a voluntary expression of employee wishes, despite a gap in the evidence regarding their custody prior to mailing.

The Board declined to order a representation vote and certified the union, with one Board member dissenting.

Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour Cereal, and Distillery Workers v. Uxbridge Beverages Ltd., 1982 CanLII 890

P. Jarvis

3 cases1982–1991

J. Hayes

2 cases1982–1990

J.A. Barker

F. G. Hamilton

28 cases1980–2001

D. Starkman

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 5, 1982

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Either party to a collective agreement may invoke the expedited arbitration procedure under section 45.

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

The trade union argued that the expedited arbitration procedure was only available to the grieving party, while the employer argued it was available to either party.

The Board held that the clear language of section 45(1) allows either party to a collective agreement to request the Minister to refer a difference to a single arbitrator.

The Board advised the Minister that he has the authority to appoint an arbitrator upon the request of either the trade union or the employer.

Corporation of the City of Sarnia Marshall Gowland Manor v. London and District Service Workers' Union, Local 220, 1982 CanLII 905

William Robb

R. C. Filion

29 cases1980–1996

Philip Sanders

M. Addario

3 cases1982–1989

L. Guest

2 cases1982–2017

L. C. Arnold

38 cases1980–1992

L. Bertuzzi

14 cases1982–2001

.J. Fabian

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

W. H. Wightman

D. E. Franks

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 5, 1982

Interim order for work assignment denied as no strike was imminent or occurring due to the assignment.

The complainant trade council sought an interim order under section 91(8) of the Labour Relations Act to restore a work assignment after the respondent employer cancelled a general contract and announced its intention to complete the remaining construction work using its own employees.

The Board declined to issue the interim order, finding that the statutory requirement of an imminent or existing strike 'by reason of the assignment of work' was not met, as there were no building trades employees left on the site to strike, and the picketing did not stop the employer's own employees from working.

The main complaint was referred for further processing.

The Sarnia Building and Construction Trades Council v. Polysar Limited, 1982 CanLII 909

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

M. G. Mitchnick

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 4, 1982

Request for reconsideration of adjournment denial dismissed due to respondent's failure to secure alternative evidence.

The respondent union requested reconsideration of a Board decision that denied an adjournment to call a witness who was on vacation.

The Board reaffirmed its decision to deny the adjournment, noting that the witness was not under a legal obligation to attend the final day of hearing and that the respondent failed to make reasonable efforts to secure alternative evidence.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed and the ballots from the representation vote were ordered to be counted.

Antonio Fiorenza & Ron Manzolini v. Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers, 1982 CanLII 906

Michael Gordon

40 cases1980–1991

Donald F. O. Hersey

7 cases1980–1986

W. H. Wightman

Kevin M. Burkett

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 1, 1982

B. L. Armstrong

OLRB0 cases1980–1997

Board declares Ontario Nurses' Association holds bargaining rights based on 1975 voluntary recognition agreement.

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) applied for a declaration of successor rights and filed a complaint alleging the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by refusing to recognize ONA as the bargaining agent.

The employer argued it had only recognized a specific local, not the provincial ONA.

The Board found that the employer had signed a clear and unequivocal voluntary recognition agreement in 1975 recognizing the provincial ONA.

The Board declared that ONA holds the bargaining rights and declined to make a formal finding of bad faith bargaining, expecting the employer to comply.

Ontario Nurses' Association v. Sudbury and District Health Unit, 1982 CanLII 823

W. H. Wightman

R. D. Howe

O. Hodges

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 8, 1982

Pre-hearing representation vote directed in certification application; ballot box sealed pending hearing on union status.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested a pre-hearing representation vote.

The respondent hospital opposed the vote, arguing the applicant lacked status to represent hospital office and clerical employees and that the application was an abuse of process due to a previously withdrawn application.

The Board directed that the pre-hearing representation vote be taken, noting the applicant had previously established its trade union status, and ordered the ballot box sealed pending a final determination of the respondent's objections at a subsequent hearing.

International Union of Allied Novelty and Production Workers, Local 905 v. Central Hospital, 1982 CanLII 850

J P. Wearing

12 cases1980–1989

W. H. Wightman

Kevin M. Burkett

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 5, 1982

Health and safety reprisal complaints dismissed; employee disciplined for insubordination, not for exercising statutory rights.

The complainant, a senior mechanic, was suspended twice by his employer: first for refusing to shut off a fan that was interfering with a smoke extractor, and second for refusing to wear newly issued reusable ear plugs and substituting disposable ones.

He filed complaints alleging the discipline was a reprisal for acting in compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the complainant was disciplined for insubordination rather than for exercising his rights under the Act.

The Board held that the Act does not entitle an employee to unilaterally disregard employer instructions or substitute protective devices without following the statutory procedures for reporting defects or refusing unsafe work.

Walter Doupagne v. Baltimore Aircoil of Canada, 1982 CanLII 846

Gerald Levitan

Alexander J. Ahee

5 cases1982–2000

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 18, 1982

Pamela C. Picher

OLRB0 cases1980–1983

Board grants related employer declaration for Samteit companies but dismisses sale of business application.

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

The union alleged that a sale of a business occurred between Norfinch Developments Limited and Norfinch Construction (Toronto) Limited, and that various Norfinch and Samteit companies were related employers.

The Board found no sale of a business had occurred, as no part of the predecessor's business was transferred to the successor during a corporate break-up.

However, the Board granted a related employer declaration with respect to Norfinch Developments Limited and the Samteit companies, finding they were under common control and direction.

The Toronto Central Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council v. Norfinch Developments Limited, 1982 CanLII 837

S. C. Bernardo

42 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

Kevin M. Burkett

H. Simon

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 21, 1982

Registered nurses at a nursing home found to be employees, not management, for certification purposes.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent registered and graduate nurses at the respondent's nursing home.

The respondent argued the nurses performed managerial functions and were excluded from the Labour Relations Act under section 1(3)(b).

The Board found that while the nurses exercised professional supervisory and reporting functions, true managerial authority regarding discipline, assessment, scheduling, and hiring rested with the Director of Nursing.

The Board concluded the nurses were employees within the meaning of the Act and granted the certification application.

Service Employees Union, Local 478 v. Waldheim Nursing Home Ltd., 1982 CanLII 1066

Robert MacDermid

2 cases1982–1992

C. M. Mithcell

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

R. D. Howe

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 20, 1982

Employer committed unfair labour practice by terminating student employee who sought union assistance for scheduling dispute.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent employer committed unfair labour practices by terminating a student employee who was an active union supporter.

The employee had requested a Saturdays-only schedule, which the employer claimed was unavailable.

After the employee mentioned the union in a meeting regarding his schedule, he was immediately terminated.

The Board found that the employer failed to discharge the reverse onus of proving the termination was free from anti-union motivation, violating section 66 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board also found that the employer violated the section 79(1) statutory freeze by unilaterally altering the employee's privilege to work available Saturday hours.

The Board ordered reinstatement with compensation.

Service Employees' International Union, Local 204 v. K-Mart Canada Limited, 1982 CanLII 1059

S. Price

2 cases1982–1982

M.L. Craven

2 cases1982–1982

Gerald Vandezande

4 cases1981–1985

G. Charney

6 cases1982–1987

W. H. Wightman

Kevin M. Burkett

B. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 7, 1982

Application for religious exemption from union dues dismissed as objection was based on professional concerns.

The applicant, a university professor, applied for an exemption from paying mandatory union dues on religious grounds under section 47 of the Labour Relations Act.

He argued that his religious beliefs, which emphasize individual responsibility and reject coercion, prevented him from supporting the faculty association.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's long-standing opposition to the union was based on professional concerns about academic standards and collegiality, rather than religious conviction.

William A. Jordan v. The York University Faculty Association, 1982 CanLII 1069

Russell Zinn

4 cases1982–2001

P. Jollymore

Philip W. White

Milan Oppelt

Lynn H. Harden

L. A. Rome

J. Huston

Ian Bolt

G. Myers

6 cases1982–2023

W. H. Wightman

S. Cooke

R. D. Howe

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 6, 1982

Board orders representation vote and posting of notices following settlement of certification application.

The applicant union sought certification without a representation vote under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging contraventions by the respondent employer.

During the hearing, the parties reached a settlement and filed Minutes of Settlement.

The Board accepted the settlement, found the applicant to be a trade union, defined the appropriate bargaining unit, and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The Board also ordered the respondent to post a notice to employees regarding their rights under the Act and the terms of the settlement.

Local Union 2228, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Filtran Limited, 1982 CanLII 1054

W. Robb

2 cases1981–1982

W. Hoad

T Richardson

Norman Fairbairn

L. C. Arnold

38 cases1980–1992

Joseph Carrier

6 cases1980–1988

Edward T MacDermott

Daniel Ublansky

11 cases1981–2005

C. S. Sullivan

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

D. B. Archer

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 23, 1981

Preliminary motion to dismiss related employer application denied to allow union to present its case.

The applicant union filed an application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act seeking a related employer declaration concerning Ethyl Canada, Inc. and its mechanical subcontractor, F.I.R.M. The respondents sought a preliminary ruling to dismiss the application without hearing further evidence, arguing that the application could not succeed due to F.I.R.M.'s pre-existing bargaining rights and the applicant's delay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to dismiss the application at the preliminary stage, finding that the issues of delay and pre-existing bargaining rights go to the heart of the section 1(4) application and should be determined after the union has had an opportunity to present its full case.

Energy and Chemical Workers Union, Local 300 v. Ethyl Canada, Inc., 1981 CanLII 875

Torrance Ferrier

N. A. Keith

G. Grossman

32 cases1980–1987

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

B. M. Foote

W. H. Wightman

M. J. Fenwick

D. E. Franks

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 3, 1981

Union's out-of-work list establishes prima facie damages for hiring hall breach; employer bears burden on mitigation.

Following a finding of liability for breaching the hiring hall provisions of a collective agreement, the respondent employer challenged the quantum of damages.

The employer argued that the union was required to identify the specific members who lost work and prove that they had attempted to mitigate their damages.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected this argument, holding that the union's out-of-work list established a prima facie case for damages.

The Board found that the burden shifted to the employer to lead evidence of a failure to mitigate, which it had not done.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $6,885.50 in damages to the union on behalf of its unemployed members.

Carpenters' District Council of Toronto and Vicinity on Behalf of Locals 27, 666, 681, 1133, 1304, 1747, 1963 and 3227 and 3233, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. George Ryder Construction Ltd., 1981 CanLII 891

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Paula M. Rusak

18 cases1981–2016

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

D. E. Franks

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 27, 1981

Working agreement signed as a consequence of an unlawful strike is unenforceable; grievance dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 124 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the working agreement relied upon by the union was signed under economic duress caused by an unlawful strike and picketing.

The Board found that the Building Trades Council had engaged in unlawful conduct by threatening and causing an unlawful strike to force the employer to sign the agreement.

Consequently, the Board declined to give effect to the working agreement, finding no valid collective bargaining relationship existed.

The grievance was dismissed.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Traugott Construction Limited, 1981 CanLII 1007

Douglas J. Wray

69 cases1980–2001

W. H. Wightman

N. B. Satterfield

D. B. Archer