W. H. Wightman

S. A. Tacon

P.J. O'Keeffe

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 29, 1986

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; failure to hold pre-disciplinary meeting did not violate statutory representation rights.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the respondent employer violated sections 64 and 66 of the Labour Relations Act by discharging a grievor without first holding a pre-disciplinary meeting with union representation.

The grievor's discharge had already been upheld at arbitration, where the arbitration board found the collective agreement provision regarding pre-disciplinary meetings to be directory only.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board upheld the employer's preliminary objection, finding that the failure to hold a meeting did not constitute a prima facie violation of the statutory right to representation, as the grievor was not confronted by the employer in an imbalance of power and was fully represented during the grievance and arbitration process.

The complaint was dismissed.

Canadian Paperworkers Union, Local 304 v. Sunworthy Wallcoverings a Division of Borden Company Limited, 1986 CanLII 1550

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 10, 1986

M. O. Mitchnick

OLRB0 cases1986–1986

K. Rogers

OLRB0 cases1985–1986

Employer's payment for a three-day lay-off constituted compliance with Board order for paid holidays.

The union complained that the employer failed to comply with a previous Board order directing it to provide employees with three additional paid holidays.

The employer had placed employees on a three-day temporary lay-off and subsequently paid them for those days, characterizing it as compliance with the order.

The Board found that the employer's actions reasonably met the minimum requirements of the order.

The Board also granted the employer time to respond to the union's request to reconsider the order to include two employees who had left the company prior to the original decision.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and its Local 27 v. Sparton of Canada Limited, 1986 CanLII 1547

Peter Thorup

22 cases1985–2016

Mickey Moyer

Michael 0 'Malley

Klein Wenske

0. Mullerbeck

W. H. Wightman

Paula Knopf

OLRB0 cases1984–1997

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 2, 1985

Adjournment granted to add an affected individual as a party in an unfair labour practice complaint.

The complainant alleged that an individual held both a managerial function and a union position, resulting in a breach of the duty of fair representation and a violation of the Labour Relations Act.

The complainant sought relief that would effectively bar the individual from the bargaining unit.

The Board raised concerns that the individual had not been named as a party.

The complainant requested an adjournment to add the individual as a party, which the respondents opposed due to previous delays.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that it would be a denial of fundamental justice to proceed without giving the affected individual notice and party status.

Rudolph Williams v. Belkin Toronto Paperboard Mill, 1985 CanLII 1110

Leonard Lyons

Ken Petryshen

17 cases1980–1985

W. H. Wightman

S. O'Flynn

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

S. A. Tacon

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 18, 1985

Union certified without a vote and discharged employee reinstated due to employer's unfair labour practices.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the improper discharge of an employee during an organizing campaign.

The employer claimed the employee was laid off due to a shortage of work and lack of qualifications.

The Board found that the employer's actions, including the discharge, involvement in an anti-union petition, and holding a captive audience meeting, violated sections 64, 66, and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

Concluding that the true wishes of the employees were not likely to be ascertained in a representation vote due to the chilling effect of the employer's conduct, the Board certified the union pursuant to section 8 of the Act and ordered the reinstatement of the discharged employee with compensation.

Teamsters Union Local No. 880 v. General Metal Products of Windsor Limited, 1985 CanLII 1092

Brian Shell

Not Practising Law66 cases1981–2021

W. H. Wightman

P.J. O'Keeffe

N. B. Satterfield

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 29, 1985

Application for certification dismissed as the proposed carve-out from an existing bargaining unit was inappropriate.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a unit of maintenance employees who were already part of a larger plant-wide bargaining unit represented by the intervener trade union.

The applicant sought to carve out these employees under section 6(1) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing they had not been adequately represented by the intervener.

The Board held that this reason alone was insufficient to depart from its established policy requiring a displacement applicant to take all employees in the existing bargaining unit.

Finding the proposed unit inappropriate for collective bargaining, the Board dismissed the application and directed the destruction of the ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote.

Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers v. Abex Industries Ltd. Friction Products Division, 1985 CanLII 1057

Martin Levinson

15 cases1980–1987

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 16, 1985

S. O'Flynn

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

Owen V. Gray

OLRB0 cases1983–1992

Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as untimely under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The applicants, registered nurses at a nursing home, applied to terminate the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The union had been certified and a conciliation officer was appointed, but no collective agreement had been reached.

The Board held that under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, once a conciliation officer is appointed, an application for termination cannot be brought until after the interest arbitration process results in a collective agreement, and then only during the open period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

Laurie Fisher & Evalina Van Geutselaar v. London and District Service Workers' Union, Local 220, 1985 CanLII 1065

Robert W. Cote

Catherine H. MacLean

3 cases1982–1990

W. H. Wightman

S. O'Flynn

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

S. A. Tacon

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 4, 1985

Board restricted further examinations of drivers to facts differing from those already established.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of drivers.

The Board previously found that ten examined drivers were dependent contractors.

The respondent employer sought to examine the remaining sixteen drivers and to recall a witness to adduce further evidence.

The Board held that further examinations could not be used to split the respondent's case, repair deficiencies, or relitigate matters already determined.

The Board directed the respondent to submit the specific facts it intended to prove for the remaining drivers, limited to facts differing from those of the ten drivers already examined, before deciding whether to permit further examinations.

Syndicat Quebecois De L'Imprimerie Et Des Communications, Local 145 v. Journal Le Droit, division du groupe UniMedia Inc., 1985 CanLII 1062

J.G. Walsh

C. King

2 cases1985–2020

C. J. Abbass

37 cases1980–2001

A. P Tarasuk

17 cases1984–2000

W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 30, 1985

Representation vote ordered as voluntary employee petition reduced union's unqualified support below 55 percent.

The union applied for certification and filed membership evidence for 56% of the bargaining unit, which would normally entitle it to certification without a vote.

However, a group of employees filed a timely statement of opposition (petition) containing signatures of employees who had previously signed union cards.

The Board scrutinized the voluntariness of the petition, particularly because one of the main proponents was the brother of a former district manager.

The Board found that while this proponent's indiscretions invalidated the signatures he collected, the signatures collected by another employee were voluntary.

As a result, the union's unqualified support fell below 55%, and the Board directed a representation vote.

One Board member dissented, finding the petition entirely involuntary.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v. Eddie Black's Limited, 1985 CanLII 1044

W. McNaughton

2 cases1982–1985

L. A. MacLean, Q. C.

4 cases1981–1987

J. C. Murray

8 cases1983–1988

W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 17, 1985

K. Rogers

OLRB0 cases1985–1986

Employer violated duty to bargain in good faith by reneging on offer after union acceptance.

The union filed a complaint alleging the employer failed to bargain in good faith by reneging on an offer regarding the length of the Christmas shutdown.

The employer had proposed a two-year renewal with 'no change', which both parties understood to mean an eight-day paid Christmas shutdown.

After the union membership voted to accept the offer, the employer attempted to schedule a five-day shutdown, claiming it had not agreed to specific dates.

The Board found that while the employer acted without ill intent, it violated section 15 of the Labour Relations Act by purporting to modify its offer after permitting the union to accept it.

The Board directed the employer to enter into a collective agreement reflecting the eight-day shutdown and to provide affected employees with three additional paid days off.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) and its Local 27 v. Sparton of Canada Limited, 1985 CanLII 1055

W. H. Wightman

D. E. Franks

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 27, 1985

Worker who refused to continue working after a near-miss with a falling beam was protected from reprisal.

The complainant and a co-worker were moving a steel beam when it fell from the hoist, narrowly missing the complainant.

An argument ensued between the two workers, and the shop manager directed the complainant to return to work with the co-worker.

The complainant refused, and the employer treated this as a quit or termination.

The complainant filed a complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging he was constructively dismissed for refusing unsafe work.

The Board held that although the complainant did not use specific safety language, his refusal was based on a genuine safety concern following the near-miss.

The Board found the complainant was entitled to a remedy and directed the parties to resolve the issue, remaining seized if they could not agree.

A dissenting member would have found that the complainant quit and authored his own misfortune.

C. Douglas Sproule v. Frankel Steel Ltd., 1985 CanLII 1023

W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

B. L. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 8, 1985

Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as untimely; Board lacked jurisdiction to extend statutory deadline.

The applicant municipality applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union following a transfer of an undertaking from the Crown.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the application was untimely, having been brought more than 60 days after the transfer.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to extend the strict 60-day statutory time limit under the Successor Rights (Crown Transfers) Act, and that the curative provisions of the Labour Relations Act did not apply to the employer in these circumstances.

The application was dismissed.

The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 1985 CanLII 997

Paul S. Jarvis

10 cases1982–2009

Malcolm Boyle

John Tomlinson

2 cases1985–1988

Jack Porter

3 cases1981–1985

Alexander Ahee

2 cases1985–2000

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 27, 1985

S. O'Flvnn

OLRB0 cases1985–1985

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Employer cannot unilaterally withhold final wages to set off a previous overpayment without court authorization.

The grievor voluntarily terminated his employment, at which time the employer withheld his final wages of $756.96 to set off a $7,060 overpayment of room and board allowance mistakenly paid to him.

The union grieved the withholding of wages.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that section 8 of the Employment Standards Act strictly prohibits an employer from unilaterally setting off or deducting amounts from an employee's wages to satisfy a claim, requiring the employer to seek its remedy in court.

The Board directed the employer to pay the withheld wages plus interest.

The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada v. The Electrical Power Systems Construction Association, 1985 CanLII 987

D. Churchill-Smith

7 cases1981–1992

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 27, 1985

L. Lenkinski

OLRB0 cases1985–1987

Harry Freedman

OLRB0 cases1984–2001

Workers supplied by a temporary help agency found to be employees of the client company.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A preliminary issue arose regarding whether certain workers supplied to the respondent by a temporary help agency (Manpower Services) were employees of the respondent or of the agency for the purposes of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that while the agency handled payroll and administrative functions, the respondent exercised fundamental day-to-day control over the workers' working lives, including assigning work, supervising, and determining hours.

The Board concluded that the respondent was the true employer and directed the matter to be re-listed to resolve outstanding certification issues.

One Board member dissented, finding the workers were employees of the agency.

United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of Canada (UE) v. Sylvania Lighting Services, 1985 CanLII 1016

Mark Contini

25 cases1981–2023

Linda R. Rothstein

80 cases1985–2025

W. H. Wightman

S. A. Tacon

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 18, 1985

P. V. Grasso

OLRB0 cases1983–1997

Minister lacks authority to appoint conciliation officer where union failed to give timely notice to bargain.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding his authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The union had requested conciliation for a 1984-1985 collective agreement, but the employer objected, arguing that the union failed to give timely notice to bargain under the 1983-1984 agreement, resulting in its automatic renewal.

The Board found that the union's late notice, given months after the agreement's expiry, did not constitute valid notice under section 53(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

Consequently, the collective agreement was automatically renewed, and the Minister lacked the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

Danver Ambulance Service Inc. v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 1985 CanLII 982

Susan Bazilli

5 cases1985–1986

Ian Roland

41 cases1980–2021

Brenda Bowlby

67 cases1984–2014

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 30, 1985

R. Wilson

OLRB0 cases1985–1990

Paula Knopf

OLRB0 cases1984–1997

Unfair labour practice complaint regarding post-strike make-up work assignments dismissed for disclosing no prima facie case.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the college violated the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act by assigning make-up work to academic staff without mutual consent or additional remuneration following a legislated end to a strike.

The college brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the college was not required to consult the union before assigning the work, as the assignments did not exceed the maximum teaching hours under the collective agreement and were consistent with the back-to-work legislation.

The Board concluded that the allegations could not reasonably or arguably establish a breach of the Act and dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology, 1985 CanLII 958

Robert Kelly

25 cases1985–2007

Robert Castiglio

2 cases1982–1985

Rino Grondin

Rick Kelly

2 cases1983–1985

Richard Laniel

P. Best

K. Overall

Harold F. Caley

51 cases1980–2003

G. Gillespie

Brian P. Smeenk

34 cases1982–2012

W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 30, 1985

Application to redefine bargaining units dismissed; no intermingling of work occurred to trigger section 63(6).

The applicant employer sought to have the Board redefine several existing bargaining units into a single unit under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act following an administrative reorganization of its wholesale operations.

The employer also requested relief under section 91 to reconcile conflicting collective agreements.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the work of the different operations remained functionally separate and identifiable, meaning no intermingling had occurred to trigger section 63(6).

The Board concluded that the dispute over the application of collective agreements and seniority rights should proceed to arbitration.

Loeb Inc. v. Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 91, 1985 CanLII 967

Mark Contini

25 cases1981–2023

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 28, 1985

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Declaration of successor rights granted to union following valid merger vote despite employee objections.

The applicant union, CUPE, applied for a declaration under section 62 of the Labour Relations Act that it had acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor union, the Bethesda Service Employees Association, following a merger vote.

The employer took a neutral position, but a group of employees objected, suggesting some employees had second thoughts after the vote.

The Board found that the merger vote was well-attended and properly conducted, and that the employees' concerns did not warrant refusing the declaration or directing a new representation vote.

The Board granted the declaration of successor rights.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Bethesda Service Employees Association, 1985 CanLII 954

Rick Ellery

John Singer

Howard A. Levitt

27 cases1985–2023

Harold F. Caley

51 cases1980–2003

Gerard J. Jansen

Garry Buccella

David Daugharty

Bruce Binning

40 cases1981–1998

B. R. Baldwin

8 cases1981–1991

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 24, 1985

R. 0. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–1999

P. Grasso

OLRB0 cases1984–1993

Respondents must produce witnesses to testify under oath to satisfy evidentiary onus in related employer applications.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business and related employer status among the respondents.

At a preliminary hearing, the respondents argued that filing a written statement of facts and certain commercial documents was sufficient to satisfy their evidentiary onus under sections 1(5) and 63(13) of the Act, without producing witnesses for cross-examination.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rejected this argument, holding that the statutory onus requires respondents to produce witnesses to testify under oath as to the material facts of the transactions and relationships, and to be subject to cross-examination.

The Board directed the matter to be relisted for hearing.

Canadian Paperworkers' Union v. Somerville Belkin Industries Limited, 1985 CanLII 972

Beth Symes

27 cases1980–2014

W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

B. L. Armstrong