David A. McKee

Board directed two related applications to be listed for a two-day hearing before the same panel.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the Registrar to list two related applications for a two-day hearing before the same panel.

The panel hearing the applications will determine the order of evidence, argument, and issues.

International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 200 v. S & S Glass & Aluminum (1993) Ltd., 2001 CanLII 11433

David A. McKee

Board directed union to respond to applicant's submissions regarding two named individuals.

The applicant provided the names of two individuals referred to in her previous submissions but failed to provide further particulars or copy the responding party union.

The Board directed the union to respond to the issue raised regarding these two individuals to the extent possible.

Michelle Bernardo-Bell v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union Local 152, 2001 CanLII 7597

David A. McKee

Board directed termination of bargaining rights and unfair labour practice applications to be heard together.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that an application for the termination of bargaining rights and an unfair labour practice application be scheduled for hearing on two consecutive days.

The Board noted that the issue of whether certain employees were unlawfully terminated was identical to the voters' list issue in the termination application.

Preliminary arguments regarding the dismissal of the termination application were deferred to the beginning of the first day of the hearing.

Peter Yawney v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Construction Council of Ontario, 2001 CanLII 6522

David A. McKee

Employer ordered to pay $25,592.03 in unremitted contributions after failing to respond to grievance referral.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to remit required deductions and contributions under the applicable collective agreements.

The responding party failed to file a response or notice of intent to defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the responding party was deemed to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the responding party liable for the unremitted amounts for June and July 2000, ordered payment of $25,592.03 plus filing fees, and directed the filing of reports for subsequent months.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Torchline Corporation, 2001 CanLII 19052

David A. McKee

Board directs scheduling of a hearing to address preliminary issues regarding delivery and late response.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties agreed to address two preliminary issues separately: whether the application was properly delivered, and whether the responding party could make submissions despite filing a late response and resiling from its original position.

The Board directed the Registrar to schedule a one-day hearing to determine these preliminary issues.

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local Union 1891 v. Petko Drywall Systems Inc., 2001 CanLII 11379

David A. McKee

Representation vote directed in construction industry union certification application.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant submitted membership evidence on behalf of more than 40% of the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit, excluding the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, and directed that a representation vote be taken among eligible employees.

Allied Construction Employees, Local 1030 v. Holiday Framing Inc., 2001 CanLII 6049

David A. McKee

Employer found liable for unpaid wages and benefits in construction grievance after failing to file response.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding employer failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend within the required time.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board deemed the employer to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the employer liable for failing to remit benefit contributions and pay correct wages under the collective agreement.

A hearing was scheduled to assess the quantum of damages.

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 46 (Local Union 1891) v. J. P. Rowland Construction Ltd., 2001 CanLII 15831

David A. McKee

Employer found liable in default for failing to remit benefit contributions; damages hearing scheduled.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to remit benefit contributions.

The employer failed to file a response or notice of intent to defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board deemed the facts in the application accepted and found the employer liable for violating the collective agreement.

The Board directed the employer to pay the required contributions and scheduled a hearing to assess damages.

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 46 (Local Union 1891) v. Ontario Fireproofers Ltd., 2001 CanLII 14149

Employer ordered to pay outstanding union remittances and costs following undefended construction industry grievance arbitration.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party employer failed to make required remittances under the provincial collective agreement.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board accepted the union's evidence that the employer failed to remit payments for several employees who worked on a water tower project.

The Board found the employer violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $11,609.29 in outstanding remittances, plus $749.00 in costs for the application filing fees.

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 128 v. Enviro Tank Inc., 2001 CanLII 15652

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 8, 2001

Request for default decision on grievance referral denied due to insufficient documentary evidence.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and sought a decision without a hearing after the responding party failed to file an Intent to Defend.

The Board declined to issue a default decision because the applicant failed to file the relevant collective agreement and the calculations for the claimed pension amounts were impossible to determine from the materials provided.

The matter was set down for a hearing.

Construction Workers Local 52, affiliated with the Christian Labour Association of Canada v. Elta Gas Services Ltd., 2001 CanLII 20435

David A. McKee

Application for review of employment standards order dismissed due to unexplained late filing.

The applicant sought a review of an employment standards officer's decision ordering it to pay $520.95.

The application was filed more than a month after the 45-day deadline.

The applicant requested an extension of time, citing a mistaken belief that the filing was timely and the burden of additional work.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to grant the extension, noting the lack of a valid explanation for the delay and the relatively small amount of money involved, and dismissed the application.

Thunder Bay Adventure Trails v. Fern Dumas, and Ministry of Labour, 2001 CanLII 3514

David A. McKee

Board issues procedural directions and sets expedited hearing for a ministerial reference regarding conciliation officer appointment.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Board under section 115 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding a request for the appointment of a Conciliation Officer.

The Board issued procedural directions requiring the applicant union and responding employer bargaining agency to file statements of representations.

The Board also directed two trade union entities seeking intervenor status to file statements justifying their standing.

A hearing was scheduled on an expedited basis.

Certified Employee Bargaining Agency for Bricklayers, Stonemasons and Plasterers v. Masonry Industry Employer’s Council of Ontario, 2001 CanLII 9652

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Representation vote directed in application to terminate bargaining rights; related employer issue deferred.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The applicant sought to include employees of a related employer in the voting constituency, despite no section 1(4) application having been filed.

The Board directed a representation vote for the primary employer's bargaining unit, allowing employees of the related employer to cast segregated ballots if they chose to vote.

David Weir v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, 2001 CanLII 18186

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Board directs representation vote in termination application, allowing segregated ballots for related company employees.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The applicant sought to include employees of a related company in the voting constituency, suggesting section 1(4) of the Act might apply, though no such application had been filed.

The Board found the application timely and that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The Board directed a representation vote for the employees of the primary employer, allowing employees of the related company to cast segregated ballots if they chose to vote.

MacHardy v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, 2001 CanLII 14574

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Board directs representation vote in application for termination of bargaining rights.

The applicant filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees.

The responding party's allegations under section 63(13) were deferred to be dealt with following the vote.

Elaine C. Aiken v. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades and the Ontario Council of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, 2001 CanLII 2455

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Representation vote directed in application to terminate union's bargaining rights.

The applicant employees applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Rigby Air Employees v. United Association of Journeypersons and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 787, 2001 CanLII 4035

David A. McKee

Health and safety appeal dismissed for failure to file proper application forms.

The applicant filed a letter requesting an appeal from an Order issued by a Health and Safety Officer, but failed to submit the proper forms for the application or the requested stay.

The Board advised the applicant of the requirements and warned that failure to comply within ten days would result in dismissal.

The applicant did not respond, and the applications were dismissed.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 7135 v. Ministry of Labour, 2001 CanLII 7970

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Board directed sole proprietor seeking to terminate union bargaining rights to explain why application shouldn't be dismissed.

The applicant, who is the sole proprietor and president of the employer, applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union.

The applicant claimed to be the sole employee in the bargaining unit.

The Board directed the applicant to provide submissions on why the application should not be dismissed without a representation vote or hearing, given the statutory provisions regarding managerial exclusions and employer interference.

Keenan Hennessey v. Carpenters’ District Council of Ontario of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, 2001 CanLII 3673

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 4, 2001

Board adjourns related employer and sale of business applications sine die pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.

The union filed applications against the responding parties alleging they were related employers or that a sale of business had occurred under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, along with an unfair labour practice complaint and a grievance referral.

Before the hearing commenced, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement wherein the responding parties agreed to pay the union $6,500.

The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die for a period of one year, with the union retaining the right to bring the applications back on for a hearing if there is a material change in the way the responding parties conduct their businesses.

The Board adjourned the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year in accordance with the settlement.

Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada v. 761203 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Schafer Masonry, 2001 CanLII 18211

Laura K. Williams

8 cases2001–2016

David A. McKee