Who is D. A. MacDonald?

D. A. MacDonald is a board member at the Ontario Labour Relations Board with 151 decisions on record from 1982 to 1994. Key areas include employment and labour law, administrative law, construction law.

What tribunal does D. A. MacDonald sit on?

D. A. MacDonald sits on the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

What areas of law does D. A. MacDonald decide?

D. A. MacDonald's most common areas include Employment and Labour Law (151 decisions), Administrative Law (61 decisions), Construction Law (30 decisions). D. A. MacDonald has handled 151 decisions across 4 areas.

How many decisions has D. A. MacDonald made?

D. A. MacDonald has 151 decisions on record from 1982 to 1994.

Who frequently appears before D. A. MacDonald?

Representatives who frequently appear before D. A. MacDonald include David McKee, Bernard Fishbein, N. L. Jesin.

D. A. MacDonald — Board Member

OLRBOct 14, 1994

Board upholds assignment of bulkhead installation for superflat floors to Carpenters and denies reconsideration.

The Labourers filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work involving the fabrication, installation, and dismantling of wooden bulkheads for 'superflat' concrete floors at a Toyota plant expansion.

The general contractor, bound by both Labourers and Carpenters provincial agreements, subcontracted the work to a company bound only to the Labourers.

The Board held a consultation and orally ruled that the work belonged to the Carpenters, based on area practice in the ICI sector.

The Labourers and the subcontractor requested reconsideration, arguing a denial of natural justice because the Board did not hold a full oral hearing or allow viva voce evidence.

The Board denied the reconsideration request, finding that the extensive written materials filed were sufficient to determine the dispute under the expedited procedures of section 93 of the Labour Relations Act.

Labourers International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council Locals 506 and 1081 v. Robertson Yates Corporation Limited, 1994 CanLII 10005

OLRBApr 7, 1994

Board dismisses successor employer's preliminary motions regarding delay and application of the statutory freeze.

The applicant union filed unfair labour practice complaints against the responding party, a successor employer providing security services.

The responding party brought preliminary motions to dismiss the complaints, arguing that the union's three-and-a-half month delay in filing prejudiced its ability to defend the claims, and that the statutory freeze under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act did not apply because it had not received formal Board notice of the certification application prior to the successorship.

The Board dismissed the delay motion, finding the delay was short and any prejudice could be addressed remedially.

The Board also dismissed the notice motion, interpreting section 64(3) of the Act to mean that the statutory freeze environment flows through to the successor employer regardless of whether it received formal Board notice.

United Steelworkers of America v. Group 4 C.P.S. Limited, 1994 CanLII 9885

OLRBMar 21, 1994

Reconsideration denied; Board refused to enforce collective agreement's 120% interest rate as it violated the Criminal Code.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that refused to enforce an interest rate of 120 per cent per annum stipulated in the collective agreement.

The applicant sought $1,604.19 in interest.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant did not adduce new evidence or raise new representations.

Furthermore, the Board held that the 120 per cent interest rate constitutes a 'criminal rate' under section 347 of the Criminal Code.

The Board concluded that it has the jurisdiction and public policy mandate to decline to enforce an illegal and unconscionable term in a collective agreement.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Bairrada Masonry Inc., 1994 CanLII 9965

OLRBJan 31, 1994

Motion to defer grievance pending jurisdictional dispute complaint dismissed as dispute primarily involved collective agreement interpretation.

The responding party employer brought a motion to defer the applicant union's grievance referral pending the filing of a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act.

The grievance concerned the employer's assignment of piping removal work to unrepresented labourers rather than to members of the applicant union.

The Board found that while it had jurisdiction to entertain the matter as a jurisdictional dispute, it was not appropriate to defer the grievance at this stage.

The dispute primarily involved the interpretation of the collective agreement, and resolving the grievance might dispose of the jurisdictional issue entirely.

The motion to defer was dismissed.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 663 v. Sarnia Wolverine Manufacturing Ltd., 1994 CanLII 9812

OLRBJan 26, 1994

Installation of precast concrete ducts for electrical cables assigned to IBEW over Labourers.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1089 and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 530 disputed the assignment of work involving the installation of a Trenwa duct system at a compressor station.

The employer had subcontracted the work to a company bound by the Labourers' agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the duct system was for the exclusive purpose of housing electrical cables and was part of the electrical installation.

The Board directed that the disputed work be assigned to members of the IBEW.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1089 v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 530 and Adam Clark Company Ltd., 1994 CanLII 9816

OLRBJan 10, 1994

Replacement worker complaint dismissed; Red Cross found to have made intimidating statements regarding job loss.

The applicant unions alleged that the Red Cross and various home care agencies and service providers violated the replacement worker provisions of the Labour Relations Act when clients were reassigned to other agencies during a lawful strike by Red Cross homemakers.

The Board found that the other agencies were not acting on behalf of the Red Cross and were not employers of the striking workers, dismissing the replacement worker complaints.

However, the Board found that the Red Cross violated sections 65, 67(c), and 71 of the Act by making intimidating statements to employees, threatening job loss if they exercised their right to strike.

Service Employees International Union, Local 204 and Local 532 v. The Canadian Red Cross Society Ontario Division, 1994 CanLII 9810

OLRBDec 16, 1993

Construction of an underground water storage tank for sewage treatment is work in the ICI sector.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board was asked to make a sector determination regarding the construction of an underground concrete water storage tank.

The applicant union argued the work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, while the responding employer and intervenor union argued it was in the heavy engineering or sewer and watermain sectors.

Applying the test from The Heavy Construction Association of Toronto, the Board found that the tank's end use was part of a sewage treatment and water pollution control process, which is industrial in nature.

The Board concluded that the building of the water storage tank is work in the ICI sector of the construction industry.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 18 v. Matthews Contracting Inc., 1993 CanLII 7879

OLRBDec 16, 1993

Jurisdictional dispute over material handling system resolved by assigning work to a composite crew of Ironworkers and Millwrights.

The applicant Ironworkers Local 700 filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 93 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the assignment of work on a material handling system at the D.N.N. Hot Dip Galvanizing Line #1 in Windsor, Ontario.

The Board held a consultation and determined that the work in dispute was a completely integrated material handling system, not merely a conveyor system or production equipment.

Having regard to prevailing area practice and previous Board decisions, the Board ordered that the work be assigned to a composite crew consisting of equal numbers of Ironworkers and Millwrights performing the work functions interchangeably.

The order was made binding on all named parties and applied to future jobs undertaken in Board Area #1.

IronWorkers' District Council of Ontario v. The State Group Limited, 1993 CanLII 7875

OLRBOct 12, 1993

Applications dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the waste transportation business is a federal undertaking.

The applicant union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding party, a waste management company.

The responding party raised a preliminary objection, arguing that its business of transporting waste from Ontario to the United States constituted an extra-provincial undertaking under section 92(10)(a) of the British North America Act, placing it under federal jurisdiction.

The Board found that the responding party operated as a common carrier whose primary function was the regular and continuous transportation of waste across the border.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the business was a federal undertaking and dismissed the applications for lack of constitutional jurisdiction.

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Browning-Ferris Industries Ltd., 1993 CanLII 7908

OLRBSep 22, 1993

Interim relief to prevent employers from imposing specific vacation weeks denied based on balance of harm.

The applicant unions sought interim relief under section 92.1 of the Labour Relations Act to prevent the responding school boards from imposing specific vacation weeks on employees during the summer.

The unions alleged that the employers' actions violated the freeze period under section 81 and constituted an unlawful lock-out under section 74.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the applications, finding that while the unions may have an arguable case on some issues, the balance of harm did not favour granting interim relief.

Granting the orders would effectively give the unions a total victory without a hearing on the merits, and any harm to employees could be remedied through compensation if the unions ultimately succeeded.

Association des Employés d'Ottawa-Carleton v. La Section catholique du Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton, 1993 CanLII 7814

OLRBAug 19, 1993

Board directs disputed material handling systems work be assigned to a composite crew of Ironworkers and Millwrights.

The Ironworkers filed a jurisdictional complaint against Comstock Canada and the Millwrights regarding the assignment of work related to material handling systems.

Prior to the consultation, the Ironworkers and the employer settled, but the Millwrights did not.

The Board ruled that the consultation would proceed because a jurisdictional dispute between the two unions still existed.

The Board determined that the work in dispute included the entire chain of work, from dismantling to installation.

Ultimately, the Board directed that the work be assigned to a composite crew consisting of equal numbers of Ironworkers and Millwrights, performing all functions interchangeably, and made the order binding on future jobs in Board Area #1.

Ironworkers' District Council of Ontario v. Comstock Canada, 1993 CanLII 7861

OLRBAug 17, 1993

Board revokes early termination of collective agreement due to inadequate posting of notice to employees.

The Board issued reasons for its earlier decision to revoke the early termination of a collective agreement between Ledcor and CLAC.

Local 183, which had filed a certification application during what would have been the open period, sought reconsideration of the early termination.

The Board found that Local 183 had standing to bring the reconsideration application because its interests were directly affected.

On the merits, the Board held that the employer's posting of the notice of the early termination application at its office and yard, rather than at the actual job sites where employees worked, was inadequate.

Consequently, the Board revoked its decision granting early termination.

The parties subsequently settled the remaining matters, including the certification application, which was dismissed after a representation vote.

Christian Labour Association of Canada v. Ledcor Industries Limited, 1993 CanLII 7840

OLRBJul 12, 1993

Part-time bargaining unit excluding registered nurses found appropriate; certification granted.

The applicant union applied for certification of a part-time bargaining unit at a nursing home, proposing to exclude registered nurses.

The responding party employer argued that registered nurses should be included.

The Board found that the proposed unit was appropriate, noting the industry practice of excluding registered nurses from service units and the Board's policy of mirroring part-time units with existing full-time units, which in this case excluded registered nurses.

The Board granted the application and issued a certificate.

Service Employees Union, Local 210 v. Provincial Nursing Home Limited Partnership, 1993 CanLII 7883

OLRBJul 9, 1993

Board advises Minister against amending Painters' union designation to explicitly include asbestos removal workers.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding a request by the Painters' union to amend its employee bargaining agency designation to explicitly include 'employees engaged in the removal of asbestos'.

The Labourers and Insulators unions opposed the amendment, arguing it would disrupt the province-wide bargaining scheme and create overlapping classifications, as they also represent asbestos removers.

The Board advised the Minister that the amendment was neither necessary nor appropriate.

The Board found that the Painters already assert jurisdiction over asbestos removal through their 'fireproofing applicators' designation, and adding specific work functions to craft-based designations would undermine the stability of the province-wide bargaining regime.

International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades v. Labourers International Union of North America, 1993 CanLII 7886

OLRBMay 26, 1993

Certification applications dismissed as untimely because existing CUPE collective agreement covered the municipal construction workers.

The applicants, two construction trade unions, applied for certification to represent standard craft units of employees of the City of St. Thomas.

The City and the intervenor union, CUPE, argued the applications were untimely because a current collective agreement between the City and CUPE covered the employees in question.

The applicants contended that the CUPE agreement did not cover construction trades or, alternatively, that CUPE had abandoned its bargaining rights.

The Board found that the CUPE collective agreement's 'all employee' recognition clause applied to the outside workers performing construction tasks, and there was no evidence of abandonment.

The applications were dismissed as untimely.

International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local 5 v. Corporation of the City of St. Thomas, 1993 CanLII 8041

OLRBNov 30, 1992

Board finds union did not abandon bargaining rights and owner is an employer bound by collective agreement.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, alleging that the respondent, Shell Canada Limited, violated the subcontracting provisions of the Carpenters Provincial Collective Agreement.

Shell raised two preliminary defences: first, that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights prior to the commencement of province-wide bargaining in 1978; and second, that Shell was acting as an owner and purchaser of construction services, not as an employer in the construction industry.

The Board dismissed both defences, finding that the union had asserted its bargaining rights whenever it had the opportunity, and that Shell exercised sufficient control over the construction project to be considered an employer bound by the collective agreement.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1988 v. Shell Canada Limited, 1992 CanLII 6783

OLRBNov 27, 1992

Complaint dismissed; freezing anniversary increments during statutory freeze period did not violate Labour Relations Act.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital violated the statutory freeze period under section 81(2) of the Labour Relations Act by freezing the anniversary increments of non-unionized employees after the union applied for certification.

The respondent argued that the freeze was part of a broader response to funding constraints and applied to all non-unionized employees, consistent with its past practice of treating all such employees alike.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the respondent's actions maintained the established pattern of operations and fell within the reasonable expectations of employees given the economic circumstances.

A dissenting member would have found a violation, arguing the established pattern was the regular granting of the increments.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Royal Ottawa Health Care Groups/Services De Sante Royal Ottawa, 1992 CanLII 6788

OLRBOct 21, 1992

Province-wide industry practice evidence is admissible in a construction industry sector determination.

In a sector determination under section 153 of the Labour Relations Act, the Board addressed preliminary issues regarding the scope of the inquiry and admissible evidence.

The applicant union grieved that the construction of an underground concrete storage tank fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector, while the respondent and intervener argued it was heavy engineering.

The Board ruled that evidence of province-wide industry practice regarding employee relations is admissible, rejecting arguments to limit evidence to local practice.

The Board also confined the sector determination to the specific work grieved (the storage tank), declining to expand the inquiry to undisputed road and sewer work on the same project.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 18 v. Matthews Contracting Inc., 1992 CanLII 6775

OLRBMay 29, 1992

Union certification application dismissed because employees did not meet the union's constitutional eligibility requirements.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the respondent.

The union's constitution restricted membership to employees of a different company, and the union had no established practice of admitting persons to membership without regard to these eligibility requirements.

Applying section 105(4) of the Labour Relations Act and the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, the Board found that the employees could not be considered members of the applicant.

The application for certification was dismissed.

Can Workers Federal Union Local 354, Canadian Labour Congress v. St. Catharines Hydro Electric Commission, 1992 CanLII 6332

OLRBApr 22, 1992

Board has jurisdiction to substitute Vice-Chair for damages phase after original Vice-Chair's death.

The applicant union filed a grievance against the respondent employer.

In a prior decision, the Board determined liability but remained seized on damages.

Before the damages issue could be resolved, the original Vice-Chair died.

A new panel, with a substituted Vice-Chair and the original Board members, was convened.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to substitute Vice-Chairs and that the matter must recommence from the beginning.

The Board held it had jurisdiction to continue, as damages appeared to be a discrete issue from liability.

The matter was relisted to determine if the prior decision was sufficiently clear to assess damages without rehearing evidence.

Labourers International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council Locals 506 and 1081 v. Robertson Yates Corporation Limited, 1994 CanLII 10005

United Steelworkers of America v. Group 4 C.P.S. Limited, 1994 CanLII 9885

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Bairrada Masonry Inc., 1994 CanLII 9965

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 663 v. Sarnia Wolverine Manufacturing Ltd., 1994 CanLII 9812

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1089 v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 530 and Adam Clark Company Ltd., 1994 CanLII 9816

Service Employees International Union, Local 204 and Local 532 v. The Canadian Red Cross Society Ontario Division, 1994 CanLII 9810

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 18 v. Matthews Contracting Inc., 1993 CanLII 7879

IronWorkers' District Council of Ontario v. The State Group Limited, 1993 CanLII 7875

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Browning-Ferris Industries Ltd., 1993 CanLII 7908

Association des Employés d'Ottawa-Carleton v. La Section catholique du Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton, 1993 CanLII 7814

Ironworkers' District Council of Ontario v. Comstock Canada, 1993 CanLII 7861

Christian Labour Association of Canada v. Ledcor Industries Limited, 1993 CanLII 7840

Service Employees Union, Local 210 v. Provincial Nursing Home Limited Partnership, 1993 CanLII 7883

International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades v. Labourers International Union of North America, 1993 CanLII 7886

International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local 5 v. Corporation of the City of St. Thomas, 1993 CanLII 8041

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1988 v. Shell Canada Limited, 1992 CanLII 6783

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Royal Ottawa Health Care Groups/Services De Sante Royal Ottawa, 1992 CanLII 6788

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 18 v. Matthews Contracting Inc., 1992 CanLII 6775

Can Workers Federal Union Local 354, Canadian Labour Congress v. St. Catharines Hydro Electric Commission, 1992 CanLII 6332

International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 50 v. Otis Elevator Company Limited, 1992 CanLII 6729

for Acco Canadian Material Handling, a Division of Babcock Industries Canada Inc.

for a group of employees

for all respondents

for Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113

for A. Reisman Construction Limited and Red Banner Developments Limited

for Brant County Home Care Program

for Comcare (Canada) Limited

for E. H. Price Limited

for Ellis-Don Limited, Milne & Nicholls Ltd. and Mollenhauer Limited

for Ferano Construction Limited

for Fred T. Reisman & Associates and M. R. Primary Trust

for F. T. Construction Inc., respondents

for George Reisman Limited, Resigeorge Management Limited and G. R. Primary Trust

for Hamilton-Wentworth Home Care Program - Victorian Order of Nurses and Victorian Order of Nurses Respite Program

for International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades

for intervener #1

for intervener #1 and The Form Work Council of Ontario

for Intervener #1 and The Form Work Council of Ontario

for interveners #1 and #2

for Ironworkers District Council of Ontario and International Association of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Ironworkers, Local 700

for Ironworkers, Local 700

for Jaddco Anderson Ltd.

for Johnson Controls Ltd.

for Labourers 506

for Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1081

for Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183

for Labourers Local 1081

for Labourers' Local 183

for Labourers' Local 183 and The Form Work Council of Ontario

for Labourers' Ontario Provincial District Council

for Labourers, Ontario Provincial District Council

for Med Care Partnership

for Medical Personnel Pool (Hamilton) Ltd.

for Metropolitan Plumbing and Heating Contractors Association

for Millwrights Local 1244

for Millwrights, Local 1244

for Millwrights, Local 1592

for Mohawk Medical Services

for Olsten Health Care Services

for Ontario Sheet Metal and Air Handling Group and Megatech Contracting Limited

for Para-Med Health Services

for Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union

for Sean O'Ryan and Local 46

for Sean O'Ryan and the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 46

for Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 47 and Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Ontario Sheet Metal Workers' Conference

for Square One Carpentry Inc.

for the applicant

for the Applicant

for the applicant/complainant

for the applicants

for The Canadian Red Cross Society Ontario Division

for the Carpenters

for the Carpenters' District Council of Toronto and Vicinity on behalf of Locals 27 and 1304, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Jointers of America

for the complainant

for the complainant Bonita Clark

for the complainants

for the complainants/applicant

for the corporate respondents

for the Electrical Contractors Association of Hamilton

for The Form Work Council of Ontario and Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183