Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 4, 2000

Time for filing applicant's submissions extended.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural decision granting an extension of time for the applicant to file submissions until October 27, 2000.

Dorothy Bowen v. International Association of Machinists and Autoworkers, Local 2113, 2000 CanLII 7582

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 2, 2000

Board clarifies previous decision to note employer provided employee names but not addresses or telephone numbers.

The Board issued a clarification of its August 25, 2000 decision regarding an unfair labour practice complaint.

The responding party requested clarification to reflect that it had provided the union with a monthly list of employee names, and had only refused to provide their addresses and telephone numbers.

The Board acknowledged this distinction and confirmed that the original decision stands with this clarification.

Hotel & Restaurant Employee CAW Local 448 National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. The Millcroft Inn Limited, 2000 CanLII 3044

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 2, 2000

Reconsideration of untimely duty of fair representation complaint denied as new evidence did not justify delay.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint as untimely.

The applicant had filed his complaint nearly four years after the union withdrew his grievance, and sought to excuse the delay by citing his wife's passing and his medical treatment.

The Board found that the new documents did not establish an inability to bring the application in a timely manner and did not raise new information or arguments that were not previously available.

The reconsideration request was denied.

Joaquim Anceriz v. United Steelworkers of America, 2000 CanLII 7502

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 2, 2000

Application adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.

The applicant union filed an application against the responding parties.

On consent of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A., Local 183 v. Canadian Professional Lining Ltd., 2000 CanLII 10108

L. Eisenberg

29 cases2000–2001

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 27, 2000

Employer appeal dismissed; employee entitled to unpaid wages for pre-shift preparation time and vacation pay.

The employer appealed an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay $1,658.00 in unpaid wages and vacation pay to a former manager and bartender.

The employee claimed she worked an hour each day before her shift preparing the bar for opening, for which she was not paid.

The Board found the employee's evidence credible and concluded she was entitled to be paid for the hour of preparation time each day, as well as her unpaid vacation pay.

The employer's appeal was dismissed, and the funds held in trust were ordered to be distributed to the employee and the Ministry.

Stavros Iliou, Sole Proprietor, o/a Sharky’s Bar & Grill v. Mrs. Louise Boyd and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 2252

Adjudicator lacks jurisdiction to reconsider prior merits decision in Employment Standards Act appeal.

The applicant employee appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.

In a prior decision, an adjudicator found the applicant was terminated without notice and entitled to termination and severance pay, leaving quantum to be determined.

At the hearing to determine quantum before a new adjudicator, the employer sought to introduce a new jurisdictional argument that the applicant worked in New York, not Ontario.

The adjudicator ruled he had no jurisdiction to reconsider the prior decision on the merits, as adjudicators under the pre-amendment Employment Standards Act lacked reconsideration powers and were functus officio.

Even if jurisdiction existed, the request was untimely and prejudicial.

The parties subsequently agreed on quantum, and the employer was ordered to pay eight weeks' termination pay.

George Luca v. Tecmotiv (1992) Inc., 2000 CanLII 8822

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 27, 2000

Duty of fair representation complaint may be premature as union asserts grievance was referred to arbitration.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging the union failed to pursue her grievance regarding lost work opportunity.

The union and the intervening employer submitted that the grievance had been referred to arbitration and an arbitrator was being appointed, making the application premature.

The Board directed the applicant to inform the Board whether these allegations were correct, failing which they would be deemed true.

Dorothy Bowen v. International Association of Machinists and Autoworkers, Local 2113, 2000 CanLII 7140

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 26, 2000

Employee joined as an intervenor in a union certification application.

In a certification application where a representation vote had been held, an employee submitted representations claiming to represent all permanent outside employees and making recommendations on the bargaining unit description.

The Board ordered that the employee be joined as an intervenor/group of employees.

Power Workers’ Union (CUPE Local 1000 – C.L.C.) v. The Hydro Electric Commission of the Town of Newmarket, 2000 CanLII 2844

Melinda Ferlisi

Laurie Eisenberg

22 cases2000–2001

John Campbell

10 cases2000–2023

Jacquie Chic

8 cases2000–2001

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 19, 2000

Employment standards appeal terminated by consent following parties' execution of Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties resolved the matter through Minutes of Settlement, agreeing that the employer would pay the applicant $2,107.75 in installments.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application by consent in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

Michael Ueckert v. Marigold International Travellers' Hostel and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 1827

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 15, 2000

Appeal withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant appealed a decision under the Employment Standards Act.

The appeal was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

Robert Hooks v. Restauronics Services Ltd., 2000 CanLII 11280

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

H. Peacock

OLRB0 cases1987–2001

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 12, 2000

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

Barbara Graham v. Monarch Marking Systems Canada Ltd., 2000 CanLII 1159

Tyler Langlois

Sharlene Ireland

Robert McKay

17 cases1984–2001

Justin K. Diggle

Jeff Andrew

14 cases1993–2013

Andrew Graham

8 cases2000–2023

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 25, 2000

Employer must provide union with employee contact information to enable duty of fair representation.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer violated section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by refusing to provide the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of bargaining unit employees.

The employer argued it was protecting employee privacy.

The Board held that the union requires this information to fulfill its statutory duty of fair representation and that the employer's refusal, while bona fide, interfered with the union's representation capacity.

The Board ordered the employer to provide the information but dismissed the union's application for consent to prosecute, finding the employer's conduct was not flagrant or egregious.

Hotel & Restaurant Employee CAW Local 448 v. The Millcroft Inn Limited, 2000 CanLII 12208

Tyler Langlois

Sharlene Ireland

Robert McKay

17 cases1984–2001

Justin K. Diggle

Jeff Andrew

14 cases1993–2013

Andrew Graham

8 cases2000–2023

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 25, 2000

Employer violated section 70 by refusing to provide union with employee contact information.

The employer argued its refusal was based on a policy to protect employee privacy.

The Board found that the union requires this information to fulfill its statutory duty to represent employees fairly and effectively.

The Board held that the employer's refusal, while bona fide, interfered with the union's representation capacity without a sufficient countervailing business purpose, thereby violating section 70.

The employer was ordered to provide the information.

The union's application for consent to prosecute was dismissed as the employer's conduct was not egregious or flagrant.

Hotel & Restaurant Employee CAW Local 448 v. The Millcroft Inn Limited, 2000 CanLII 12207

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

G. McMenemy

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 25, 2000

Board ordered a representation vote and sealed the ballot box in a certification application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate but could not conclude that 40% or more of the individuals in the unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and the ballot box be sealed pending further order or agreement.

United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 206 v. Cara Operations Limited, 2000 CanLII 7312

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

H. Peacock

OLRB0 cases1987–2001

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 24, 2000

Applications adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the applications sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matters will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 3261 v. The University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2000 CanLII 3100

Christopher J. Albertyn

Reconsideration request denied as employer had reasonable opportunity to present its case at original hearing.

The applicant employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision that found it to be an industrial establishment subject to the Occupational Health and Safety Act, rather than an exempt farming operation.

The employer argued it had not presented evidence regarding its customer base at the original hearing because it believed the Board would only consider its activities.

The Board denied the request, noting the customer base issue was raised by the Ministry at the hearing and the employer had a reasonable opportunity to address it then.

AquaNorth Farms Inc., o/a AquaNorth Forest Nurseries v. Belanger, 2000 CanLII 2254

Christopher J. Albertyn

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed as applicants voluntarily signed forms accepting their retirement packages.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to properly represent them regarding their voluntary retirement packages.

The Board dismissed the application, noting that both applicants had signed Election Forms accepting the retirement package and acknowledging that the program had been fully explained to them.

As the applicants voluntarily accepted the packages, there was no basis for the claim against the union.

David Bonar and Eugene Kunz v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 385, 2000 CanLII 2249

Christopher J. Albertyn

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed due to unjustified four-year delay in filing.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union nearly four years after the union withdrew his termination grievance.

The applicant explained the delay by stating he was unaware he could bring such an application.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that ignorance of legal rights does not justify a four-year delay, and allowing the complaint to proceed would cause significant prejudice to the other parties.

Joaquim Anceriz v. United Steelworkers of America, 2000 CanLII 9345

Christopher J. Albertyn

Duty of fair representation complaint conditionally dismissed as union was advancing grievance to arbitration.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case, noting that the applicant's grievance was proceeding to arbitration.

The Board found that since the relief sought (referral to arbitration) was already being provided by the union, the application should be dismissed.

The applicant was given an opportunity to make submissions as to why the matter should not be dismissed.

David S. Courtney v. The Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, 2000 CanLII 4514

Christopher J. Albertyn