W. H. Wightman

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 19, 1986

Employer ordered to pay unpaid union dues; guarantor association not liable due to union's delay.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board against Parent Masonry Limited for failing to remit welfare payments, union dues, and other required payments under two collective agreements.

The union also sought to hold the Masonry Contractors' Association of Toronto Inc. liable for the default under a guarantee clause in the agreements.

The Board found that Parent Masonry Limited violated the agreements and ordered it to pay $55,629.63.

However, the Board dismissed the claim against the Association, finding that the union failed to satisfy the condition precedent of exhausting all ways and means of collection, including the mechanics lien remedy, in a timely manner before seeking to enforce the guarantee.

The Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada, Local 1 v. The Masonry Contractors' Association of Toronto Inc. and Parent Masonry Limited, 1986 CanLII 1527

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 1, 1986

Owen V. Gray

OLRB0 cases1983–1992

Employer's request to reconsider direction to disclose employee lists to union prior to hearing dismissed.

In a certification application, the employer requested reconsideration of a Board direction requiring it to provide copies of employee lists to the applicant union prior to the next hearing date.

The employer argued that Board practice required such lists to be examined only in the presence of a Labour Relations Officer to prevent abuse.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, holding that natural justice requires the union to have access to the information, and that providing the lists in advance promotes efficiency and narrows issues without necessarily requiring an officer's presence.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Metropolitan Separate School Board, 1986 CanLII 1523

W. H. Wightman

R. 0. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–1999

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 10, 1986

Board schedules adjourned certification applications for hearing rather than dismissing or further adjourning them.

The applicant union sought to represent various categories of teachers under the Labour Relations Act.

Several applications were adjourned sine die pending the resolution of test cases regarding whether the teachers were covered by the Labour Relations Act or the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act.

The respondent employers requested the applications be dismissed, while the union requested further adjournment pending judicial review of the test cases.

The Board declined both requests and directed that the applications be scheduled for hearing to resolve the outstanding issues.

Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation v. Lincoln County Board of Education, 1986 CanLII 1462

W Dubinsky

15 cases1985–1995

Michael Fraser

2 cases1984–1986

Fred Bickford

11 cases1986–2014

W. H. Wightman

S. O'Flynn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 7, 1986

N. B. Satterfield

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

Acquisition of retail food store lease, fixtures, and inventory constituted a sale of a business.

The union applied for a declaration that Current River Foods Ltd. was a successor employer to Canada Safeway Limited under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, following the transfer of a retail food store lease and the sale of fixtures and inventory.

The employer argued it had merely acquired idle assets to start a new, distinct business.

The Board applied the 'Dutch Boy' line of cases, emphasizing the importance of location in the retail food industry.

The Board found that the employer's acquisition of the premises, fixtures, and inventory, and its efforts to retain the existing customer base, constituted a sale of part of Safeway's business.

The employer was declared bound by the existing collective agreement.

United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 409 v. Canada Safeway Limited and Current River Foods Ltd., 1986 CanLII 1456

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 17, 1986

Judith McCormack

OLRB0 cases1986–1995

J. Redshaw

OLRB0 cases1986–1997

Construction industry bargaining unit for sheet metal workers restricted to journeymen and registered apprentices.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant argued the unit should be restricted to journeymen sheet metal workers and registered apprentices, while the respondent argued it should include all employees performing sheet metal work.

The Board, with one member dissenting, held that given the unique historical and organizational features of the construction industry and the specific legislative requirements attached to the sheet metal trade, the bargaining unit should be restricted to journeymen and registered apprentices.

Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Local Union 537 v. Naylor Group Incorporated, 1986 CanLII 1464

Rod Jamer

Richard Dubuc

R. C. Filion, Q. C.

4 cases1984–1986

Paul Pellettier

3 cases1986–1994

Naomi Duguid

17 cases1981–1986

Michael G. Horan

22 cases1980–2000

Kenneth J. Larone

Keith Drake

John Bryant

Jeffrey W. hearer

C. M. Mitchell

38 cases1980–1999

Brad Cundiff

Andrea E. Esson

2 cases1986–1992

W. H. Wightman

R. 0. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–1999

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 3, 1986

Departmental bargaining unit for magazine editorial employees found inappropriate; all-employee unit required.

The applicant union sought certification for a departmental bargaining unit consisting of approximately 42 employees in the editorial department of TV Guide Magazine.

The respondent employer argued that the appropriate unit should encompass all employees of the magazine or both TV Guide and Canadian Living.

The Board found that the editorial department employees did not share a separate community of interest distinct from other employees, noting shared services, common terms of employment, and functional integration.

The Board rejected the union's proposed departmental unit, holding that an all-employee unit was appropriate, and directed the matter to be relisted for further hearing.

Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild v. TV Guide Inc., 1986 CanLII 1451

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 30, 1986

P. J. 0 'Keeffe

OLRB0 cases1985–1986

Patricia Hughes

OLRB0 cases1986–1991

Final certification revoked and interim certification granted after objecting employees contested a settlement agreement.

The applicant union and respondent hospital reached a settlement regarding the status of disputed employees in an application for certification, leading the Board to grant final certification.

However, objecting employees subsequently informed the Board that they did not sign the settlement because they disagreed with it, not because they declined to participate.

The Board reconsidered its decision, revoked the final certification, granted interim certification, and reappointed a Labour Relations Officer to inquire into the disputed individuals.

Ontario Nurses' Association v. Winchester District Memorial Hospital, 1986 CanLII 1391

Stuart Ducoffe

In Private Practice5 cases1986–2014

Robert J. Reynolds

In Private Practice86 cases1986–2026

Gerald Charney

Cindy Wilkey

17 cases1986–2012

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 30, 1986

Ken Petryshen

OLRB0 cases1986–2000

D. A. Patterson

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

Decertification petition found voluntary despite union's allegations of employer interference during prior lock-out.

The applicant employee filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The union argued that the petition was not voluntary due to the employer's conduct during a recent lock-out, the hiring of replacement workers, and the payment of a larger Christmas bonus to the applicant.

The Board found that the employer's actions did not taint the petition, as they were not directly related to its origination or circulation, and the petition was circulated eight months after the lock-out ended.

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

Craig Scurr v. Service Employees Union, Local 183, 1986 CanLII 1392

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

R. A. Werry

38 cases1980–1994

M. Contini

9 cases1982–2023

J. Vair

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 30, 1986

N. B. Satterfield

OLRB0 cases1980–1992

J. Redshaw

OLRB0 cases1986–1997

Board dismisses preliminary objections and grants construction industry certification based on parties' agreement.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer raised preliminary objections regarding the applicant's standing, the appropriateness of the geographic area, and the lack of notice to employees and another union local.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding the applicant had standing and that notice was properly given.

The parties subsequently reached an agreement settling the appropriate bargaining unit and adjourning the related employer application.

The Board issued certificates to the applicant based on the agreed bargaining unit and membership evidence.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 353 v. 584317 Ontario Limited, 1986 CanLII 1445

Vincent Nichilo

Jack Bird

Helen O’Regan

6 cases1983–1986

Harold F. Caley

51 cases1980–2003

Ed Alexander

Doug Knott

David L. Bloom

Barry W. Earle

5 cases1985–1991

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 9, 1986

Owen V. Gray

OLRB0 cases1983–1992

Bargaining unit for school board instructors must include all subjects; part-time exclusion set at 10 hours.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of full-time Heritage Language Instructors employed by the respondent school board.

The Board determined that a unit limited to Heritage Language Instructors was not appropriate, finding that all instructors employed by the board shared a community of interest and should be included in a single unit.

The Board also considered whether to exclude part-time instructors from the unit.

Departing from its traditional 24-hour rule for part-time employees, the Board concluded that instructors working 10 hours or less per week should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Metropolitan Separate School Board, 1986 CanLII 1379

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 28, 1986

Board reconsiders certification decision to correct inadvertent inclusion of part-time production workers in tag-end unit.

The Board reconsidered its earlier decision certifying the union for a 'tag-end' bargaining unit.

The earlier unit description inadvertently included part-time production workers because it was framed broadly to avoid fragmentation.

The Board revoked the previous certificate and issued an interim certificate specifically for laboratory staff, pending submissions on the history of part-time laboratory employees.

Teamsters Chemical Energy & Allied Workers Union Local 424 v. Resco Chemicals & Colours Ltd., 1986 CanLII 1384

Paul Magee

James B. Noonan

17 cases1980–2000

F. J. Matthews

3 cases1980–1987

E. G. Posen

8 cases1981–1987

W. H. Wightman

Sean O'Flynn

OLRB0 cases1986–1987

Robert J. Herman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 4, 1986

Employer's insistence to impasse on a clause allowing discharge without just cause does not constitute bad faith bargaining.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer bargained in bad faith contrary to section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to table a monetary offer and by insisting to impasse on a clause allowing discharge without just cause upon payment of severance.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union had never requested a monetary offer.

Regarding the discharge clause, the Board held that it does not monitor the content of bargaining proposals unless they are illegal or indicate surface bargaining.

Since a clause permitting discharge without cause is not per se illegal, the employer's insistence on it did not violate the duty to bargain in good faith.

Canadian Union of United Brewery, Flour, Cereal, Soft Drink and Distillery Workers v. Formula Plastics Inc., 1986 CanLII 1413

W. H. Wightman

Owen V. Gray

OLRB0 cases1983–1992

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 24, 1986

Board directs pre-hearing representation vote and orders notice to employees regarding single-employer declaration.

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

The parties jointly requested that the two respondent entities be treated as one employer under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be conducted and ordered that notice of the joint application be given to affected employees, allowing them an opportunity to make representations before the Board grants the single-employer declaration.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. St. Joseph's Hospital and St. Joseph's Home, 1986 CanLII 1498

R. Ross Wells

16 cases1985–2010

John B. West

5 cases1983–1988

W. H. Wightman

Patricia Hughes

OLRB0 cases1986–1991

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 4, 1986

Tree cutters working exclusively for Ontario Hydro declared dependent contractors under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union sought a declaration that two tree cutters were dependent contractors for Ontario Hydro under section 1(1)(h) of the Labour Relations Act.

The workers had formed a partnership and contracted exclusively with Hydro to remove danger trees near power lines.

The Board found that the workers were economically dependent on Hydro, as they performed 100% of their work for Hydro and exhibited no entrepreneurial activity.

Furthermore, their duties more closely resembled those of employees than independent contractors, given the detailed instructions, training, and integration into Hydro's operations.

The Board declared the workers to be dependent contractors.

CUPE- CLC, Ontario Hydro Employees Union, Local 1000 v. Ontario Hydro (Bancroft Area), 1986 CanLII 1513

Steven Barrett

10 cases1984–1999

S. C. Bernardo

42 cases1980–2001

Raimo T. Heikkila

6 cases1981–1986

Michael Mitchell

12 cases1980–1996

Lou Popovich

2 cases1984–1986

Lorenzo Girones

5 cases1986–2023

L. Lyman

Gary Bouchard

2 cases1984–1986

Eryl Roberts

4 cases1986–1991

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 20, 1986

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

Related employer declaration granted; section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act does not violate Charter.

The applicant trade union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act against three construction companies.

The respondents raised a preliminary objection that section 1(4) violates the guarantee of freedom of association under section 2(d) of the Charter.

The Board dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding that section 1(4) protects rather than infringes freedom of association by preserving existing bargaining rights.

On the merits, the Board applied the Walters Lithographing criteria and found that the three companies carried on associated or related activities under common control or direction.

The Board declared the companies bound by the collective agreement and ordered remedies for unfair labour practices.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1687 v. F.D.V. Construction Limited, 1986 CanLII 1482

T. Nigel Campbell

Sherry Liang

3 cases1986–1990

G. Charney

6 cases1982–1987

Gary Kapitan

Gail Lem

Derek L. Rogers

13 cases1980–2012

W. H. Wightman

Robert J. Herman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 23, 1986

P. V. Grasso

OLRB0 cases1983–1997

Employees must be given notice of an intervener's application for certification.

In an application for certification, an intervener union filed its own application for certification.

The Board considered whether employees must be given notice of the intervener's application.

Both the applicant and intervener opposed giving notice, arguing that a vote was likely and employee petitions would be irrelevant.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that employees have a right to participate in certification proceedings and must be given meaningful notice of a second application.

The Board directed the employer to post notices of the intervener's application.

Toronto Typographical Union No. 91 v. Starways Distributors, 1986 CanLII 1587

J. J. Nyman

14 cases1980–1992

J. C. Murray

8 cases1983–1988

W. H. Wightman

P.J. O'Keeffe

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 22, 1986

Ian C. Springate

OLRB0 cases1983–1989

Certification application dismissed; multi-location bargaining unit diluted union's membership support below 45 per cent.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the respondent's Brown's Line location.

The respondent argued that the appropriate unit should include employees at both its Brown's Line and Queensway locations in Metropolitan Toronto.

Applying the Usarco criteria, the Board found a strong community of interest between the employees at the two locations due to integrated operations and regular employee movement.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit encompassed all employees in Metropolitan Toronto.

As the union's membership evidence related to fewer than 45 per cent of the employees in this broader unit, the application was dismissed.

Canadian Paperworkers Union v. Faber-Castell Canada Limited, 1986 CanLII 1598

Wallace M. Kenny

12 cases1980–2015

O. Gibson

J. Rundle

H. Schoonover

H. O'Regan

C. Wilkey

C. M. Mitchell

38 cases1980–1999

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 10, 1986

Paula Knopf

OLRB0 cases1984–1997

L. Lenkinski

OLRB0 cases1985–1987

Summer students included in part-time hospital bargaining unit to avoid undue fragmentation.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification of a part-time bargaining unit at the Toronto General Hospital.

The central issue was whether students employed during the school vacation period should be included in the part-time unit or excluded.

The Hospital argued for their exclusion, citing potential conflicts of interest and the viability of a separate student unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board applied its established policy of grouping part-time employees and summer students together to avoid undue fragmentation.

Finding no compelling evidence of irreconcilable conflict or that the students could form a viable separate unit, the Board ordered the inclusion of summer students in the part-time bargaining unit and issued a certificate.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. The Toronto General Hospital, 1986 CanLII 1588

Robert W. Staley

Paul J. Schrieder

Jeffrey S. Leon

52 cases1981–2025

Chris G. Paliare

192 cases1980–2026

W. H. Wightman

S. O'Flynn