Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 23, 2000

Application for termination pay dismissed as the employee voluntarily resigned and could not unilaterally retract it.

The applicant, a hair stylist, sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.

Following a series of workplace disagreements, the applicant stormed out of the salon and stated she was leaving.

Over the weekend, she attempted to retract her resignation, but the employer refused to accept the retraction without an acknowledgment of fault, which the applicant declined to provide.

The Board found that the applicant had subjectively intended to resign and objectively conveyed that intention to the employer, and that her resignation could not be unilaterally withdrawn.

The application was dismissed.

Sherry Roberts v. Creative Hair Design and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 12795

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union's decision not to pursue grievances was not arbitrary.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue her grievances regarding missed work and her subsequent discharge.

The applicant claimed her discharge was the result of systemic racial discrimination by the employer.

The union investigated the grievances, considered the applicant's submissions, and obtained an independent legal opinion which concluded there was no evidence of systemic discrimination.

Based on this, the union decided not to pursue the grievances.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case that the union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner, as it had carefully investigated the claims and relied on reasonable grounds and expert advice.

Sharda Ramadhin v. Office & Professional Employees International Union Local 343, 2000 CanLII 12523

H. Keith Juriansz

41 cases1994–2026

David Sterns

77 cases2000–2026

Andrea Esson

26 cases1988–2019

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 8, 2000

Application for termination pay dismissed; associate's insubordination constituted wilful misconduct justifying summary dismissal.

The applicant, a lawyer formerly employed as an associate at the responding law firm, sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.

The applicant was summarily dismissed after a heated dispute with the managing partner over the firm's vacation pay policy, during which she acted insubordinately and refused to follow instructions.

The Adjudicator found that the applicant's conduct constituted wilful misconduct and disobedience that was not condoned by the employer.

Consequently, the employer was exempt from the obligation to provide notice of termination or pay in lieu thereof under section 57(10)(c) of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was dismissed.

Anthea Koon v. Juriansz & Li and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 12387

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 7, 2000

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed as the matter was already before the Human Rights Commission.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging the union failed to adequately pursue his sexual harassment complaint.

The Board noted that the applicant had already referred his complaint to the Human Rights Commission, which is the proper forum for the matter.

The Board declined to inquire further into the application and dismissed it.

Jan E. Simon Cieslak v. CAW Local 222, 2000 CanLII 12282

Scott Bates

6 cases1999–2001

Mark Wright

49 cases1993–2022

Joseph Liberman

Suspended Administratively53 cases1980–2001

Doug Lefaive

5 cases1999–2001

Brando Paris

20 cases1985–2001

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 3, 2000

Employer's motions to exclude evidence of alleged intimidators' criminal records and gang affiliations dismissed.

During a hearing for union certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, the responding employer brought two evidentiary motions.

The employer sought to strike the admitted criminal records of two individuals alleged to have intimidated employees, and to exclude the anticipated testimony of a police intelligence officer regarding the individuals' gang affiliations.

The Board dismissed both motions, finding the evidence arguably relevant to the employees' perceptions and the employer's decision to hire the individuals, while reserving the right to determine the ultimate evidentiary weight at the close of proceedings.

United Steelworkers of America v. Baron Metal Industries Inc., 2000 CanLII 12227

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 27, 2000

Adjudicator lacks jurisdiction to reconsider Employment Standards Act decision under pre-amendment regime.

The employer requested reconsideration of a decision regarding the quantum of damages under the Employment Standards Act.

The adjudicator had corrected an oral decision based on a Divisional Court ruling that overturned the case law relied upon by the employer.

The employer argued it was not given an opportunity to make submissions on the Divisional Court decision and that the decision did not apply.

The adjudicator found that even if he had jurisdiction, he would not have reconsidered the decision.

However, he concluded he had no jurisdiction to reconsider the decision, as the power of reconsideration belongs to the Board under its Rules, not to an Adjudicator/Referee operating under the pre-amendment regime of the Act.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

Volker Stark v. Kerry's Place (Autism Services) and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 11922

Laurie Eisenberg

22 cases2000–2001

Heidi Ann Lazar-Meyn

15 cases2000–2000

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 25, 2000

Application for review of employment standards refusal dismissed due to applicant's failure to appear.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

Neither the applicant nor the responding employer appeared at the scheduled hearing.

Upon the request of counsel for the Ministry of Labour, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to advance his claim and the lack of evidence to support it.

Frederick W. Ungshang v. King Toyota and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 11224

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 20, 2000

Section 76 complaint dismissed for lack of particularity; rival union struck from section 74 complaint.

The applicants filed complaints under sections 74 and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 against the responding trade union.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the application did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the section 76 complaint for lack of particularity regarding the allegations of harassment and coercion.

The Board also struck the rival trade union as an applicant in the section 74 complaint, noting that the duty of fair representation only protects bargaining unit members.

The remaining section 74 allegations concerning the union's conduct in bargaining a renewal collective agreement were referred to a hearing.

Carmichael v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, 2000 CanLII 10422

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 20, 2000

Reconsideration request regarding certification application set down for hearing with related files.

The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 requested reconsideration of a certification application by the Generation Construction Employee Association, claiming it should have received notice as it holds bargaining rights for the unit.

The Board ordered the reconsideration request to be set down for hearing alongside several related files to address issues including timeliness and notice.

Generation construction Employee Association v. Generation Construction Limited, 2000 CanLII 7695

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 20, 2000

Applicant permitted to amend particulars in duty of fair representation complaint to avoid duplication.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by the responding trade union.

The Board considered whether to dismiss the application and require a fresh application or allow the applicant to amend his particulars.

The Board decided to permit the applicant to amend his existing application to avoid unnecessary duplication, setting deadlines for the amended particulars and responses.

Gary Spracklin v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113, 2000 CanLII 7475

Robert Little

17 cases1988–2017

Julia Noble

19 cases1991–2005

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 17, 2000

OHSA reprisal complaint dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case and deferring to arbitration.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging reprisals by the employer regarding his work assignment, a denied promotion, and an improper comment by his manager.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the application did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding no causal nexus between the work assignment and the previous OHSA complaint, noting the promotion issue was already proceeding to grievance arbitration, and declining to inquire into the manager's comment due to its trivial nature and scant prospect of success.

Antonio Zanet v. The Liquor Control Board of Ontario, 2000 CanLII 12159

Daniel Randazzo

15 cases1993–2001

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 17, 2000

Consent order issued resolving construction industry grievance based on parties' settlement agreements.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance against the responding party employer under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties reached two Memorandums of Settlement resolving the matter, acknowledging the employer was bound by the collective agreement and had violated it.

The Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlements, including declarations of the violations and orders for the payment of damages and outstanding remittances.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 837 v. 949590 Ontario Inc., 2000 CanLII 12462

J. A. Rundle

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

D. A. Patterson

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 15, 2000

Board grants consent to early termination of two collective agreements under s. 58(3) of the LRA.

The applicant employer sought early termination of two collective agreements with the responding union pursuant to section 58(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Notices were properly posted and no objections were received from affected employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted consent to the early termination of the collective agreements.

Loeb Canada Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union 91, 2000 CanLII 7612

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 14, 2000

Employer ordered to pay $19,803 in trust fund arrears and costs for violating collective agreements.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance against the responding party employer under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employer's principal admitted that the employer was bound by the provincial and residential collective agreements and had failed to make required contributions to various trust funds.

Relying on a rebuttable presumption in the collective agreement and a statement provided by the union, the Board found the employer in violation of the agreements.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $19,803.00 in arrears to the trust funds and $1,350.00 in costs.

Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675 v. Simplex Drywall Limited, 2000 CanLII 12798

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 13, 2000

Employer's application for review of an Order to Pay dismissed for failure to appear.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer failed to appear at the scheduled hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application due to the lack of evidence to support it and ordered the funds held in trust to be paid to the responding employee with accrued interest.

The Kiely House Inc. v. Kristin Tupper and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 11939

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 11, 2000

Request for reconsideration of decision granting intervenor status denied.

The applicant requested reconsideration of the Board's decision to grant intervenor status to the Carpenters Employer Bargaining Agency (EBA).

The Board denied the request, finding that the EBA has a real and substantial interest in the matter and that the Board would benefit from its participation.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2486 v. P. A. Richens, 2000 CanLII 12254

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 6, 2000

Union certified as bargaining agent following successful representation vote, despite one disputed employee classification.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote, more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

Although there was an ongoing dispute regarding the status of one employee, the Board determined that the applicant's right to certification could not be affected by the outcome of that dispute.

The Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent and scheduled a hearing to resolve the remaining issue.

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Canadian Waste Services Inc., 2000 CanLII 6043

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 22, 1999

Board grants reconsideration to hear legal costs issue de novo with Employer Bargaining Agency participation.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of an earlier Board decision that found it was not entitled to legal costs under the provincial collective agreement in a grievance concerning the hiring of non-union workers.

The earlier hearing proceeded without the participation of the responding employer or the Carpenters' Employer Bargaining Agency.

Recognizing the industry-wide significance of the issue and the benefit of full participation, the Board granted the reconsideration, set aside its earlier decision, and directed that the matter be heard de novo by a different panel with the Employer Bargaining Agency joined as an intervenor.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2486 v. P. A. Richens, 1999 CanLII 20198

Melissa Kronick

19 cases1994–2014

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 14, 1999

Union's claim for costs under collective agreement dismissed as grievance concerned hiring hall violations, not unpaid wages.

The applicant union sought its reasonably incurred costs of $2,014 following a default judgment against the responding party for violating the collective agreement by failing to use the union's hiring hall.

The union relied on Article 9.18 of the collective agreement, which provides for costs in grievances alleging a failure to pay wages or make trust fund payments.

The Board dismissed the costs claim, finding that Article 9.18 was designed for the specific purpose of addressing unpaid wages and trust fund contributions, not hiring hall violations.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2486 v. P. A. Richens, 1999 CanLII 19490

Melissa Kronick

19 cases1994–2014

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

Christopher J. Albertyn