Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 21, 2000

Request for reconsideration of decision dismissing applications for lack of prima facie case denied.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his applications for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board denied the request, finding that the applicant had not presented any new relevant facts or arguments that he was prevented from presenting earlier, and that his allegations did not advance his original case.

John Wales v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2000 CanLII 12522

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 21, 2000

Application dismissed after applicant requested a further adjournment sine die of a previously resolved matter.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a consultation, the parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die for up to one year.

Just before the expiry of the one-year period, the applicant requested a further one-year adjournment.

The intervenor employer opposed the request.

The Board found that all substantive issues had been addressed and the remaining issues were speculative and related to events from long ago.

The Board declined to extend the adjournment and dismissed the application.

Roseann Coppins v. National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local 222, 2000 CanLII 11782

Board consolidates termination and ULP applications, allows party name amendment, and directs unions to proceed first.

The Board heard preliminary matters regarding a termination application and an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board ordered the applications consolidated as they involved common evidence.

The Board allowed the applicant to amend the name of the responding party in the termination application under section 112 of the Act, finding the error was a bona fide mistake.

Finally, the Board determined the order of proceeding, directing the unions to adduce evidence first, as the core factual allegations regarding employer interference were not acknowledged by the employer and the unions' witnesses were best positioned to establish the factual foundation.

L. Krish Sankar v. Industrial Wood and Allied Workers Union of Canada (IWA-Canada), 2000 CanLII 11998

Christopher J. Albertyn

Consent order issued directing employer to pay $750 pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement wherein the employer agreed to pay the applicant $750.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order directing the employer to pay the agreed sum.

Jeffery Allan Long v. Dewar Right and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 12241

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Christopher J. Albertyn

Representation vote ordered in displacement application, but ballot box sealed pending hearing on injunction's effect.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The intervenor argued that a recent Superior Court injunction against individuals now associated with the applicant precluded the vote or required the ballot box to be sealed.

The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to consider the effect of the Court's order.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Women’s Emergency Centre Woodstock, Inc., 2000 CanLII 8065

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Christopher J. Albertyn

Representation vote directed in termination application; union's request to seal ballots due to employer initiation allegations denied.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

The union sought to dismiss the application without a vote or to seal the ballot box, alleging employer initiation under subsection 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found the application timely and the allegations insufficient to prevent the vote or seal the ballots at this stage.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with the union's allegations to be dealt with in the ordinary course at a hearing.

David Weisenberg et al. v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America et al., 2000 CanLII 9032

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Christopher J. Albertyn

Representation vote ordered in displacement application, but ballot box sealed pending hearing on intervenor's objections.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The intervenor argued that a recent Superior Court injunction against individuals associated with the applicant precluded the vote or required the ballot box to be sealed.

The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to consider the effect of the court order.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Oxford Child and Youth Centre Woodstock, Inc., 2000 CanLII 9961

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Christopher J. Albertyn

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

United Steelworkers of America v. Kafko Manufacturing Limited, 2000 CanLII 8925

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Christopher J. Albertyn

Representation vote ordered in displacement application, but ballot box sealed pending hearing on court injunction.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

The intervenor union requested that the application be dismissed or the vote delayed due to a Superior Court injunction against individuals formerly associated with the intervenor.

The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to determine the effect of the court order.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Sunbeam Residential Development Centre, 2000 CanLII 12076

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Christopher J. Albertyn

Representation vote ordered in displacement application, but ballot box sealed pending hearing on court injunction.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor union.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support and ordered a representation vote.

The intervenor argued that a recent Superior Court injunction against individuals formerly associated with the intervenor prevented the vote or required the ballot box to be sealed.

The Board ordered the vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to determine the effect of the court order on the Board's processes.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Sunbeam Residential Development Centre, 2000 CanLII 11247

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Christopher J. Albertyn

Representation vote directed in union certification application using the responding party's bargaining unit description.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, disputing the bargaining unit description but not the number of employees.

The Board found no substantive difference between the proposed units and directed a representation vote using the responding party's description.

The Board determined that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union and ordered the vote to proceed.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Trailmobile Parts & Service Canada Ltd., 2000 CanLII 7488

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Christopher J. Albertyn

Representation vote ordered in displacement certification application, with ballot box sealed pending hearing on injunction.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor union at Delhi Nursing Home.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty percent of the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board ordered a representation vote.

The intervenor argued that a recent Superior Court injunction against individuals formerly associated with the intervenor prevented the vote or required the ballot box to be sealed.

The Board ordered the vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to consider the intervenor's arguments regarding the court order.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Delhi Nursing Home, 2000 CanLII 11833

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Christopher J. Albertyn

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicants sought to withdraw their application against the responding party union.

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

Kevin Good et al. v. The United Steelworkers of America, Local 9042, 2000 CanLII 1343

Stephen Mason

20 cases1986–2005

Christopher J. Albertyn

General written authorizations for wage deductions for cash shortages are enforceable if no one else has access.

The employer appealed an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay regarding unpaid wages and termination pay for four employees.

The employer argued that deductions should be made for cash shortages and double-charged credit cards, relying on general written authorizations signed by the employees.

The Board held that general written authorizations for the refund of cash shortages are enforceable provided no other person has access to the cash.

The Board allowed the deductions for two employees but upheld the termination pay for another employee who was fired.

The Order to Pay was varied accordingly.

1281419 Ontario Limited o/a Denley’s Bar & Grill v. Linda Watters et al, 2000 CanLII 12360

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Christopher J. Albertyn

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175 & 633 v. Hallmark Housekeeping Services Inc., 2000 CanLII 3689

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 13, 2000

OHSA reprisal application dismissed after applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application under subsection 50(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging he was fired for exercising his rights under the Act.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The responding party requested the application be dismissed.

The Board dismissed the application due to the lack of evidence to support the claim.

Allan W. Parker v. Ignace Saw Mill, 2000 CanLII 9816

Mark Klaiman

5 cases2000–2024

Karima Chatur

53 cases1999–2001

Bryan P. Stokes

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 13, 2000

Employee appeal for unpaid salary dismissed as adjudicator finds applicant worked on commission basis.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for 8 weeks of unpaid salary and vacation pay.

The applicant claimed he was employed on a salaried basis after selling his shares in the respondent restaurant business.

The respondent argued the applicant was retained on a casual commission basis to generate banqueting events.

The Adjudicator found the respondent's evidence more probable, concluding the applicant was not employed on a salaried basis during the disputed period.

The appeal was dismissed, but the respondent was directed to calculate and pay the applicant any outstanding commission earned during that time.

Sanjay Gandhi v. La Suhaag Indian Restaurant & Bar Ltd., 2000 CanLII 13276

W. J. Hayter

14 cases1981–2000

Terry Parnell

Stephen A. McArthur

21 cases1988–2015

Peter Marturano

Magnatta Enzo

Len Lupton

Kelvin Kucey

25 cases1993–2026

Kate Chrysler

John M. Wigle

6 cases1993–2016

John Cioffi

Jodi M. Tarter

George Pollitt

Fred Hamilton

2 cases1995–2000

Donald D. White

5 cases1982–2001

David L. Brisbin

8 cases1987–2001

Dave Armstrong

Bob Miller

Alex Hamilton

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 10, 2000

Motion to dismiss related employer application denied; union granted confidential access to franchise agreements.

The union brought an application under section 69 and subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that a sale of business occurred between Sobeys and several franchisees, or alternatively that they constitute one employer.

The responding parties moved to dismiss the subsection 1(4) application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The union moved for production of the actual franchise agreements.

The Board dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding the union established a prima facie case for relief under subsection 1(4) regarding the relationship between Sobeys and each franchisee.

The Board also granted the union's request for production, allowing union counsel to review the actual contracts subject to confidentiality conditions.

United Food and Commercial Workers’ International Union, Local 175 v. Sobeys, 2000 CanLII 26884

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 28, 2000

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union's agreement to new shift schedule followed majority vote.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by agreeing to a new 10-hour shift schedule with the employer.

The union had conducted a secret ballot vote in which a majority of employees approved the new schedule to avoid working night shifts.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding no prima facie case that the union acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

Reginaldo Silva v. Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada, Local 700, 2000 CanLII 13124

Christopher J. Albertyn