W. H. Wightman

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 11, 1985

L. C. Collins

OLRB0 cases1983–1987

E. Norris Davis

OLRB0 cases1980–1985

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed due to extreme 19-month delay in filing.

The complainant filed a complaint alleging the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under sections 68 and 70 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process her wrongful dismissal grievance.

The respondent moved to dismiss the complaint due to extreme delay, as it was filed 19 months after the complainant's termination.

The Board found that the delay was extreme and without mitigating circumstances, causing prejudice to the respondent's ability to present a defense.

The Board exercised its discretion to refuse to entertain the complaint and dismissed it.

Catherine Whittaker v. Service Employees Union Local 268, 1985 CanLII 939

R. Ross Wells

16 cases1985–2010

Mark Zigler

In Private Practice34 cases1982–2021

Kevin Park

James Whyte

4 cases1985–1985

B. O'Byrne

A. Morrow

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 28, 1985

Harry Freedman

OLRB0 cases1984–2001

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; employer permitting incumbent union to post notices did not violate Act.

The complainant union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the respondent employers violated section 64 of the Labour Relations Act by permitting an incumbent union to post disparaging notices on company bulletin boards during an organizing campaign.

The respondents brought a motion to dismiss the complaints for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board granted the motion, finding that the posting of notices was permitted under the collective agreements and section 46(1)(c) of the Act, and therefore could not constitute a violation of section 64.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. J. Paiva Foods Ltd., 1985 CanLII 962

Terence J. Nicol

Sheila Mclntyre

Robert McKay

17 cases1984–2001

Richard Van Banning

Richard J. Nixon

18 cases1982–2005

R. C. Filion, Q. C.

4 cases1984–1986

R. A. Spence

3 cases1985–1986

Lorne Morphy, Q.C.

James Hayes

66 cases1980–2000

James B. Noonan

17 cases1980–2000

C. R. Robertson

5 cases1985–1994

B. A. Hanson

W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 25, 1985

B. L. Armstrong

OLRB0 cases1980–1997

Board refuses to add parent corporations and individual shareholders as respondents for 'deep pocket' recovery.

The applicant union sought to add parent corporations and individual shareholders as respondents to ongoing section 1(4) and 89 proceedings against the employer.

The union alleged that these entities and individuals controlled the employer and sought to add them to ensure recovery of any claims.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, holding that section 1(4) is intended to preserve bargaining rights, not to provide a 'deep pocket' for recovery where there has been no transfer of work or erosion of bargaining rights.

The Board also found no exceptional circumstances to affix personal liability under section 89.

Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union —Local 414 AFL-CIO-CLC v. Dominion Stores Limited, 1985 CanLII 931

Naomi Duguid

17 cases1981–1986

M. Longworth

3 cases1984–1985

Michael Gordon

40 cases1980–1991

Don Burshaw II

3 cases1983–1985

Carolyn Shaughnessy

3 cases1983–1985

W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 5, 1985

B. L. Armstrong

OLRB0 cases1980–1997

Successor employer ordered to reinstate predecessor's employees and pay damages following sale of nursing home.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent successor employer committed an unfair labour practice by refusing to employ the predecessor's employees following a sale of a nursing home business.

The Board found that the respondent was legally obligated under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act to staff the new facility with the predecessor's employees.

The Board ordered the respondent to reinstate the former employees with full seniority and compensate them for lost wages and benefits.

Service Employees International Union, Local 183 v. Daynes Health Care Limited, 1985 CanLII 920

Stephen Bale

3 cases1985–2012

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 25, 1985

S. O'Flynn

OLRB0 cases1985–1988

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Complaint for late settlement payment dismissed as the delay was minor and interest trivial.

The complainant alleged a breach of a settlement agreement because the respondent paid a $1,750 settlement amount approximately one week late.

The respondent had offered to pay the four or five dollars in interest for the delay, but the complainant refused, demanding a Board order as a matter of principle.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 89 of the Labour Relations Act to decline to make an order, noting the delay was not excessive and the amount in issue was trivial.

The complaint was dismissed.

Fatehally Khamisa v. Captali Investments Limited, 1985 CanLII 912

Valerie Cassells

Romeo Best

Robin A. Barclay

Marilyn Becker

John Vanelli

J. E. Stibbards

Jeffrey Sack, Q. C.

2 cases1984–1985

J. Anderson

3 cases1983–1988

Helen O’Regan

6 cases1983–1986

Graydon McNair

Fran Macaluso

F. G. Hamilton, Q.C.

7 cases1980–1992

Cathy Lace

17 cases1982–2013

Barry Edson

10 cases1980–1999

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 21, 1985

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

Board determines appropriate hospital service bargaining unit, including RNAs but excluding technical and clerical staff.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of service workers at the respondent hospital.

The hospital argued that the unit should be broader and include various technical, paramedical, and clerical classifications.

The Board reviewed the history and principles of bargaining unit determination in the hospital sector.

It concluded that Registered Nursing Assistants (RNA's) and Nursing Technicians should be included in the service unit due to established collective bargaining practice.

However, other technical personnel, lab assistants, and ward clerks were excluded, as they could appropriately be placed in paramedical or clerical units without affecting the viability of the service unit.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees v. The Hospital for Sick Children, 1985 CanLII 899

Gordon F. Luborsky

3 cases1985–2003

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 14, 1985

S. A. Tacon

OLRB0 cases1984–1991

Complaints for OHSA reprisal and breach of union's duty of fair representation dismissed.

The complainant, a transit driver, was dismissed after a series of incidents including invoking the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) to refuse to operate a streetcar he claimed had defective brakes.

He filed complaints alleging he was dismissed for invoking the OHSA and that his union breached its duty of fair representation by refusing to take his grievance to arbitration.

The Board dismissed both complaints, finding that the complainant was discharged for insubordination and his poor disciplinary record, not for invoking the OHSA.

The Board also found the union had properly investigated the grievance, considered its merits, and reasonably concluded it would not succeed at arbitration.

Wilfred George Love v. Toronto Transit Commission, 1985 CanLII 910

W. H. Wightman

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 30, 1985

Grievance dismissed; employee who left assembly point early failed to qualify for daily travel allowance.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the respondents wrongfully withheld a daily travel allowance of $11.00 from an employee who left his designated assembly point six minutes prior to the end of his shift.

The majority of the Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the employee failed to remain at work for his scheduled daily hours as required by the collective agreement to qualify for the allowance.

The withholding of the allowance was deemed a contractual consequence rather than a disciplinary penalty.

A dissenting member would have allowed the grievance, applying the de minimis rule.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Electrical Power Systems Construction Association (EPSCA), 1985 CanLII 878

Michael Gordon

40 cases1980–1991

M. G. Horan

12 cases1981–1995

L. Steinberg

45 cases1982–2001

G. Ward

4 cases1985–1993

0. Pettipas

W. H. Wightman

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

P.J. O'Keeffe

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 28, 1985

Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed due to employer interference in statement of desire.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the respondent union.

The Board found that the employer's president had assisted the applicant by finding a lawyer to represent the employees, and that this involvement was conveyed to the other employees at a meeting held on the employer's premises.

The Board concluded that the employer's conduct interfered with the employees' ability to voluntarily express their wishes.

As the statement of desire was not voluntary, the application was dismissed.

Paul Winter v. Ontario Sheet Metal Workers Conference, 1985 CanLII 877

Paul Cavalluzzo

28 cases1981–2015

Allan Shakes

4 cases1985–1993

W. H. Wightman

M. G. Mitchnick

B. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 25, 1985

Complaint dismissed; hospital parking fee increases during statutory freeze constituted 'business as before'.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that two hospitals violated the statutory freeze period under section 13 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act by increasing employee parking fees during collective bargaining.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the hospitals had a well-established pattern of periodically reviewing and adjusting parking rates.

The Board held that the increases constituted 'business as before' and did not violate the statutory freeze.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Oshawa General Hospital, 1985 CanLII 880

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 22, 1985

Robert D. Howe

OLRB0 cases1984–1995

B. L. Armstrong

OLRB0 cases1980–1997

Complaint regarding inadequate union financial statements dismissed as lack of detail stemmed from poor internal records.

The complainant, a union member, alleged under section 85(2) of the Labour Relations Act that the audited financial statements provided by the respondent union were inadequate because they lacked a detailed breakdown of certain expenditures.

The Board found that the financial statements were prepared by a reputable accounting firm in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

The lack of detail was due to inadequate documentation in the union's own financial records, which prevented the auditors from verifying specific expenditures.

The Board concluded that the financial statements themselves were not inadequate within the meaning of the Act and dismissed the complaint.

Irene Bovay v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 16, 1985 CanLII 874

W. Grant Oliver

Heather J. Laing

4 cases1981–1987

Fred Mathewson

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 10, 1985

S. A. Tacon

OLRB0 cases1984–1991

L. C. Collins

OLRB0 cases1983–1987

Union certified without a vote despite projected workforce build-up, as current workforce was sufficiently representative.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description.

The union demonstrated membership support of 75% (86 out of 114 employees).

The respondent employer requested a representation vote, arguing that a projected build-up of the workforce to 244 employees warranted delaying certification.

The Board applied the build-up principle but found that the current workforce was sufficiently representative and the union enjoyed sufficient support to warrant immediate certification without a vote.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America, U.A.W. v. Woodbridge Foam Corporation, 1985 CanLII 886

W. G. Posthumus

4 cases1980–1985

D. McKee

3 cases1983–1992

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 4, 1985

S. Cooke

OLRB0 cases1981–2025

R. A. Furness

OLRB0 cases1980–1991

Applications for sale of business and related employer declarations dismissed due to lack of continuity.

The applicant union sought a declaration that there had been a sale of a business from Candesco to Interspace and ECI, or alternatively, that the three entities constituted one employer under the Labour Relations Act.

Candesco, a unionized interior general contractor, went into receivership.

Its former principals started Interspace, a consulting and contract management business, and ECI, a unionized carpentry installation company.

The Board dismissed the sale of business application, finding no transfer of assets, employees, or goodwill.

The Board also dismissed the related employer application, concluding that Interspace and ECI were engaged in different businesses and were not carrying on associated or related activities with Candesco.

Locals 1316 and 1946 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Candesco (1978) Ltd., 1985 CanLII 868

W. H. Wightman

R. O. MacDowell

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

C. A. Ballentine

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 18, 1984

Board grants interim certification and declares three taxi companies a single employer after respondents fail to appear.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a group of taxi drivers and owner-operators.

The union argued that the three respondent taxi companies should be treated as one employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act and that the owner-operators, as dependent contractors, should be included in a mixed bargaining unit.

The respondents failed to attend the hearing.

Based on the uncontradicted evidence, the Board found that the respondents carried on related activities under common control and declared them to be one employer.

The Board also found a mixed unit appropriate and granted interim certification to the union, appointing an Officer to resolve disputes over the precise composition of the bargaining unit.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, AFL:CIO:CLC: v. Beacon Vanier Taxi (1984) Co. Ltd., 1984 CanLII 1019

K. W. Kort

12 cases1981–1999

W. H. Wightman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 17, 1984

S. A. Tacon

OLRB0 cases1984–1991

J. Kennedy

OLRB0 cases1983–1990

Board dismisses complaint enforcing expired settlement but refuses to defer remaining unfair labour practice allegations to arbitration.

The complainant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer violated sections 64, 66, and 89(7) of the Labour Relations Act by laying off a nurse and abolishing the head nurse position.

The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing that the prior minutes of settlement ceased to operate once a collective agreement was signed, and that the Board should defer the remaining allegations to arbitration.

The Board held that the minutes of settlement, which resolved a prior statutory freeze violation, were of finite duration and could not be enforced under section 89(7) after the collective agreement took effect.

However, the Board declined to defer the remaining unfair labour practice allegations to arbitration, noting the early stage of the parties' collective bargaining relationship and the potential inadequacy of the arbitral remedy.

The section 89(7) complaint was dismissed, and the remaining allegations were referred to the Registrar for a hearing.

Ontario Nurses' Association v. Edward Street Manor Nursing Home, 1984 CanLII 1024

Lynn H. Harnden

7 cases1982–1990

W. H. Wightman

H. Kobryn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 13, 1984

Harry Freedman

OLRB0 cases1984–2001

Union certified without a vote under section 8 due to employer's threats and interference.

The applicant union sought certification under section 8 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices during an organizing campaign.

The employer laid off the primary union organizer, threatened plant closure, and encouraged the formation of an alternative employee committee.

Although the employer later reinstated the organizer and issued a letter recognizing employee rights, the Board found these remedial steps insufficient to erase the chilling effect of the earlier threats.

The Board concluded the employer violated sections 64 and 66, the true wishes of the employees were unlikely to be ascertained, and the union had adequate support for collective bargaining.

The Board exercised its discretion to certify the union without a vote.

One Board member dissented.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters' and Joiners of America, Local Union 1030 v. Elbertsen Industries Limited, 1984 CanLII 1081

T. Stone

P. Reid

W. H. Wightman

Harry Freedman

OLRB0 cases1984–2001

B. Armstrong

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 18, 1984

Board counts employees with termination notices for certification; union's request to withdraw denied and application dismissed.

The union applied for certification.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing that employees who had received notice of termination should not be counted as employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board ruled that since the individuals were at work on the date of the application, they must be counted as employees.

Following this ruling, the union requested leave to withdraw its application.

Given the stage of the proceedings, the Board denied the request to withdraw and dismissed the application.

Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union v. Simpsons Limited, 1984 CanLII 1100

Robert A. Madeley

W. H. Wightman

W.F. Rutherford

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 18, 1984

Owen V. Gray

OLRB0 cases1983–1992

Union certification granted after oral evidence cured technical defects in documentary membership evidence.

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

The Board initially sealed the ballot box due to defects in the membership evidence, specifically the absence of collectors' signatures on the receipts and a problematic Form 9 Declaration.

After hearing oral evidence from the Form 9 declarant and the collectors, the Board was satisfied that the initiation fees were properly collected and the inquiries required by Form 9 were carried out.

The Board found the membership evidence satisfactory, unsealed the ballot box, and, upon counting a majority in favour of the applicant, granted certification.

Energy and Chemical Workers Union v. Maple Leaf Mills Limited, 1984 CanLII 1096

Louisa Davie

4 cases1984–1987

Leonard Maclin

W. H. Wightman