David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 3, 2001

Board directed applicant union to advise how it wishes to proceed regarding disputed employer identity.

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

A representation vote was held, but the responding party disputed being the true employer of the five individuals who cast ballots.

The Board amended the style of cause on consent and directed the applicant to advise how it wishes to proceed, noting the applicant's responsibility to produce the individuals for examination.

Allied Construction Employees, Local 1030 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Jirehtec Canada Inc. operating as JCI Development Group, 2001 CanLII 16650

IUBAC charter revocations of Ontario Locals declared void; BACU certification applications dismissed.

The Ontario Locals of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (IUBAC) sought greater autonomy, leading the IUBAC to revoke their charters.

The Ontario Locals formed a new union, the Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada (BACU), and sought to be certified as the employee bargaining agency under section 154 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the IUBAC violated sections 147 and 149 by revoking the charters without just cause, declaring the revocations null and void.

However, the Board dismissed the BACU's applications for certification, finding that it did not meet the statutory definition of an employee bargaining agency.

The Board ordered structural remedies to protect the autonomy of the Ontario Locals from further unjustified interference by the IUBAC.

International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Locals 6, 7 and 25 v. Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, 2001 CanLII 19624

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 2, 2001

Parent union lacked just cause to place local provincial conference in receivership over autonomy dispute.

The applicants challenged the parent union's decision to place the local provincial conference in receivership.

The Board found that the parent union lacked just cause to impose the receivership, as it sought to use its constitutional power to require the local union to abandon its statutory rights and surrender in an ongoing dispute over local autonomy.

The receivership was declared null and void.

Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, 2001 CanLII 19798

Michael Gottheil

24 cases1986–2003

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

Joel Freedman

4 cases1998–2006

Donald K. Eady

19 cases1990–2001

David Bannon

In Private Practice37 cases1994–2026

Andrea Bowker

Practising Law - Employed64 cases1995–2026

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 2, 2001

Parent union lacked just cause to impose receivership on local union amidst autonomy dispute.

The applicants alleged that the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by imposing a receivership on the Ontario Provincial Conference.

The Board found that the parent union lacked just cause to impose the receivership, as it was attempting to use its constitutional power to force the local union to abandon its statutory rights and surrender in an ongoing dispute over local autonomy.

The receivership was declared null and void.

Ontario Provincial Conference of the International Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, 2001 CanLII 20342

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 2, 2001

Adjournment of hearing granted based on responding party's reasons.

The responding party requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for the following day.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting that the reasons provided, if true, were sufficient.

The applicant was given the opportunity to dispute the veracity of the reasons, in which case the responding party would need to prove them at the next hearing date.

Budget Car and Truck Rentals Toronto v. Lynn Taylor and Ministry of Labour, 2001 CanLII 9371

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 30, 2001

Employer and principal ordered to pay unpaid remittances and costs after failing to appear at hearing.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding parties failed to remit contributions required by the collective agreement.

The parties previously signed Minutes of Settlement acknowledging the debt and personal liability of the individual responding party.

The responding parties failed to file a response or appear at the hearing.

The Board accepted the union's hearsay evidence regarding the quantum of damages and ordered the responding parties to pay $14,030.10 in damages plus $749.00 in costs.

International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 786 v. 1022349 Ontario Inc., 2001 CanLII 4693

Brian Fukuzawa

9 cases1999–2001

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 30, 2001

Employer's appeal dismissed; employee entitled to termination pay as alternate work requiring personal vehicle was unreasonable.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision awarding the employee four weeks' termination pay.

The employer argued the employee was discharged for wilful misconduct due to poor driving, was offered reasonable alternate work, quit the alternate work, or was on a fixed-term contract.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the appeal, finding the employee's driving did not constitute wilful misconduct.

The Board also held that the alternate work offered, which required the employee to use her own vehicle, was not reasonable alternate work.

Finally, the Board found the employment was indefinite, characterized by seasonal lay-offs, entitling the employee to the full termination pay awarded.

Aboutown Transportation Limited v. Nona Oliver, 2001 CanLII 14785

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 30, 2001

Board declines to provide legal advice and directs applicant to file particulars of union complaint.

The applicant's counsel sent correspondence requesting advice from the Board on how to proceed.

The Board declined to provide advice, noting it can only adjudicate based on pleadings.

The Board directed the applicant to file particulars of her complaint, including the relevant collective agreement, to allow the Board to deal with the union's motion to dismiss under Rule 46.

Brenda Currine Perrin v. Ontario Public Service Staff Union (“OPSSU”), 2001 CanLII 5113

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 25, 2001

Application for review of employment standards decision dismissed due to unexcused late filing.

The applicant sought a review of an employment standards officer's decision denying his claim for unpaid overtime.

The application was filed more than a month after the statutory deadline.

The applicant claimed he thought speaking to the officer was sufficient to commence an appeal, but the Board noted the officer's decision letter contained written instructions on how to apply for a review, which the applicant either failed to read or ignored.

Finding no valid reason to extend the time limit and noting the potential prejudice to the employer due to fading memories regarding unrecorded overtime, the Board dismissed the application.

Daniel Predie v. Custom Comfort Systems Inc., 2001 CanLII 7384

G. Pickell

David A. McKee

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 25, 2001

Board issues orders and directions incorporating parties' Minutes of Settlement in grievance arbitration.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act.

Prior to the calling of evidence, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving the majority of the issues, including the fabrication of fixture chains and retroactive premium pay for improperly paid foremen.

The Board issued orders and directions in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement and adjourned the remaining issues sine die.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 586 v. Crawford and Murray Electric Limited, 2001 CanLII 6290

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 24, 2001

Request for new representation vote denied; post-vote eligibility challenges and minor scheduling delays insufficient.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent carpenters employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote in which the applicant received majority support, the intervenor union requested a new vote.

The intervenor challenged the eligibility of three employees whose ballots had been counted on consent and argued the vote was held one day late, causing an employee on vacation to miss it.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that post-vote eligibility challenges offend the interests of finality and that the Board is not required to coordinate vote dates with employees' personal schedules.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

Labourers’ International Union of North America v. Exclusive Carpentry Enterprises Limited, 2001 CanLII 4455

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 24, 2001

Board issues procedural directions for hearing related certification and successor employer applications.

The Board issued procedural directions regarding three related applications involving certification, successor employer, and related employer declarations under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board directed the Registrar to list all three files for a one-day hearing to determine the status of the various parties seeking to participate, including the existence of collective agreements and their effect on the certification applications.

The Board also directed the parties to fully plead their particulars regarding allegations of abandonment of bargaining rights and the 'April Waterproofing' argument.

Allied Construction Employees Local 1030 v. Tyger Construction Inc., 2001 CanLII 15770

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 24, 2001

Board denied applicant's request to issue a decision based solely on a letter and directed the matter to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant requested that the Board issue a decision based on a letter from counsel.

The Board denied the request, stating it could not do so in the circumstances of the case.

The Board noted that the responding parties had sufficient notice of the proceedings and the request for relief against a named individual personally.

The Board warned the responding parties that failure to attend the scheduled hearing would likely result in the applicant receiving the relief sought and potential costs.

The matter was directed to proceed to a hearing as scheduled unless adjourned by the applicant.

International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 786 v. 1022349 Ontario Inc. Operating as Steel-Tech, 2001 CanLII 7346

David A. McKee

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant, Hamilton Public Health Laboratory, requested that its application be withdrawn.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and ordered the application withdrawn.

Hamilton Public Health Laboratory v. OPSEU Local 203, 2001 CanLII 6756

David A. McKee

Board orders sealed ballots counted before litigating true employer dispute in certification application.

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

A representation vote was held and the ballot box was sealed due to a dispute over the identity of the true employer.

The Board ordered that the ballots be counted immediately, reasoning that if the applicant did not receive a majority, there would be no need to litigate the true employer issue.

If the applicant received a majority, the matter would be referred to a hearing to determine the true employer.

International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 736 v. Adanac Welding and Fabricating Inc., 2001 CanLII 12621

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Board scheduled a two-day hearing to determine the status of two disputed individuals in a certification application.

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

The only outstanding issue was the status of two disputed individuals.

The Board directed the Registrar to schedule two days for a hearing and encouraged the parties to arrange for document production prior to the hearing.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 800 v. 1040523 Ontario Limited c.o.b. as Norfab Metal and Machine, 2001 CanLII 4147

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

The Board directed the Registrar to schedule a one-day hearing regarding the appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant union filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board directed the Registrar to set the matter down for a one-day hearing to address the appropriate bargaining unit, the timeliness of the application, and any related issues.

Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., 2001 CanLII 16031

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Parties directed to complete filing of submissions by May 23, 2001.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural direction ordering the parties to complete the filing of submissions required by the Board's Rules of Procedure on or before May 23, 2001.

Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183 v. Urbancorp Developments Inc., 2001 CanLII 13949

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Certification application dismissed after union failed to win more than 50% of representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, but not more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

No statements of desire to make representations were filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the destruction of the ballots after 30 days.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 787 v. Union Energy Inc. c.o.b. as 21 Degrees Heating & Air Conditioning, 2001 CanLII 19619

David A. McKee