David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 28, 2000

Board directs parties to consider intervenor's adjournment request in grievance referral.

The applicant union filed a grievance against the responding party regarding residential bricklaying work.

The intervenor union filed an intervention, claiming its members performed the work, and requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing date due to a scheduling conflict.

The Board directed the parties to consider the intervenor's adjournment request and advise the Board.

Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Local 5 v. Hyde Park Masonry Limited, 2000 CanLII 12344

J. G. Knight

David A. McKee

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 21, 2000

Board directed responding parties to file submissions on motion to strike pleadings for non-participation.

The applicant union requested that the Board strike the pleadings of the responding parties and determine the case based on the facts stated in the application, alleging partial default in document production by one respondent and noting the lack of participation by others.

The Board directed the responding parties to file submissions addressing the extent of the default and their interest in proceeding, given that one respondent never filed a response, another's mail was returned, and the third's counsel had removed himself from the record.

International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 721 v. Big “B” Steel Erectors Inc., 2000 CanLII 11876

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 19, 2000

Duty of fair representation application dismissed; union's advice to accept settlement was reasonable.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it acted arbitrarily by advising him to accept a settlement package and resign from his employment.

The applicant sought to retract his consent to the settlement agreement months later.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's advice was reasonable given the applicant's poor attendance record and the uncertain prospects of success at arbitration.

The Board also held that parties are entitled to rely on freely entered settlement agreements, and the applicant failed to allege any facts suggesting fraud, coercion, or lack of capacity.

Gary Sobeski v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local 636, 2000 CanLII 12926

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 18, 2000

Consent order issued for $28,259.10 in unpaid remittances based on parties' Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding party violated the collective agreement and ordering the payment of $28,259.10 in damages for unpaid remittances and employer contributions.

Carpenters & Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Omega Trim & Doors Ltd., 2000 CanLII 12251

David A. McKee

Board orders disbursement of funds held in trust following partial settlement of Employment Standards Act appeal.

The applicants applied under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act for review of an Order to Pay.

Minutes of Settlement were executed by three of the five responding employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the disbursement of funds held in trust to the three settling employees and the Consolidated Revenue Fund, in accordance with the settlement.

The application with respect to the remaining two employees was referred to the Registrar for scheduling of a hearing.

5-0 Luxury Rental Inc. et al. v. Susan Villeneuve, et al, and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 11994

L. Arnold

6 cases1981–2000

J. Saunders

J. Raso

19 cases1992–2001

G. Caroline

B. Vosper

B. McNamara

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

David A. McKee

Board directed parties in jurisdictional dispute to attend case management meeting and file confidential memorandums.

The applicant union filed three jurisdictional dispute applications.

The Sheet Metal Workers requested an electronic hearing to hold one application in abeyance based on their reading of the applicant's brief.

The Board declined to decide the issue at this stage and instead directed the parties to attend a case management meeting.

The Board also ordered the parties to file confidential pre-consultation memorandums to facilitate settlement discussions.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 508 v. E.S. Fox Limited, 2000 CanLII 12931

David A. McKee

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed without a hearing as facts alleged did not disclose a prima facie breach.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant raised three issues: displacement from tasks by another employee, offensive language from a co-worker, and a physical assault by a different co-worker whose subsequent discharge was being grieved by the union.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the union had acted appropriately in all instances, including its decision to represent the discharged employee with 20 years of service, and that the facts alleged did not disclose a prima facie breach of the duty of fair representation.

Kathy Bullock v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 3313, 2000 CanLII 12925

David A. McKee

Board corrects factual error in previous decision extending time for filing Employment Standards Act application.

The Board issued a decision correcting an obvious error in its previous decision dated June 28, 2000, which extended the time for filing an application under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board had erroneously stated that monies were paid in trust by the employee, when they were paid by the employer.

Pursuant to section 21.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Board corrected the error and confirmed its decision to extend the time for filing the application.

Carlo Di Nardo v. Paradise Banquet & Convention Centre, 2000 CanLII 12658

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 7, 2000

Board issues consent orders and declarations based on parties' Minutes of Settlement regarding unpaid fees.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding parties were a common employer.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued declarations and orders as requested in the settlement, including a declaration that Trillium Electrical Contractor Inc. is bound to the collective agreements and an order that it pay $5,500.00 in damages for unpaid owner-operator fees.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 v. Slade Electric, 2000 CanLII 12730

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 6, 2000

Application terminated following parties' execution of Minutes of Settlement.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving all outstanding matters arising from the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application pursuant to subsection 69.1(5) of the Employment Standards Act.

Bertony Alcine v. L’ami des gourmets Limitée, 2000 CanLII 7559

Richard Blair

131 cases1987–2020

Patrick Bourk

2 cases2000–2000

Maria McDonald

Practising Law - Employed7 cases2000–2016

Jim Fyshe

8 cases1991–2001

Fred Von Veh

6 cases1997–2001

Andra Pollak

10 cases1981–2001

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 6, 2000

Board directs simultaneous hearing of related employer and unfair labour practice applications with evidence order specified.

The applicant union brought three related applications, including a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96, and an application under section 66.

The parties disputed the order of proceeding and whether the section 1(4) application should be bifurcated from the unfair labour practice issues.

The Board directed that all three files be heard simultaneously initially, with the responding employers calling their evidence first, subject to a later determination on whether to split the proceedings.

The Board also made directions regarding the production of documents and particulars.

Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada, Local 700 v. Supply Chain Express Inc., 2000 CanLII 12057

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 5, 2000

Board defers decision on union's motion to dismiss duty of fair representation complaint for delay.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union regarding her 1997 termination.

The union sought to dismiss the application for delay and failing to disclose a prima facie case, noting the applicant waited 21 months before contacting the union.

The Board expressed serious concerns about the delay, citing the City of Mississauga principles, but deferred a final decision to allow the applicant to file further submissions explaining her actions between January 1997 and October 1998.

Mary Doughlin v. Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75, 2000 CanLII 13410

David A. McKee

Board lacks statutory authority under the ESA to order pre-hearing particulars but warns of consequences.

In an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision, the Ministry of Labour requested the Board to order the applicant to produce particulars of his application in advance of the hearing.

The Board denied the request, finding that it lacks the statutory authority under the Employment Standards Act to make such a pre-hearing order, unlike its powers under the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board strongly encouraged the applicant to provide the particulars voluntarily, warning that failure to do so could result in delays or dismissal of his application at the hearing.

George Robinson v. Gus’s Kitchen and Bath Limited, 2000 CanLII 13134

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

David A. McKee

Board revoked previous decision and application withdrawn on agreement of the parties.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to reconsider and revoke a previous Board decision dated June 26, 2000.

The Board revoked the prior decision and the applicant withdrew the application.

Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Sanan Construction/(961488 Ontario Limited), 2000 CanLII 9166

S. Krashinsky

6 cases1980–2000

D. Defrancesco

3 cases2000–2001

David A. McKee

An undocumented worker's immigration status is irrelevant to their status as an employee under the Labour Relations Act.

During a union certification application, the employer challenged the ballot of a worker on the basis that the worker did not possess a valid social insurance number or work authorization under the Immigration Act.

The employer sought to introduce evidence of the worker's undocumented status, arguing that the unlawful nature of the employment contract meant the worker was not an 'employee' under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that the worker's immigration status was irrelevant to their status as an employee under the Act, as the performance of work and payment of wages were not inherently unlawful.

The Board refused to permit the evidence to be led.

Bricklayers, Masons Independent Union of Canada, Local 1 v. Neivex Masonry Inc., 2000 CanLII 12678

David A. McKee

Union's request to dismiss duty of fair representation complaint for lack of prima facie case denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging that his union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by failing to respond to his request for assistance after he was refused employment due to a disability.

The union requested that the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case or, alternatively, that the applicant be ordered to provide further particulars.

The Board found that the application pleaded sufficient facts to require an answer from the union and directed the matter to proceed to a consultation.

Manuel Tereso v. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local 30, 2000 CanLII 13076

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 30, 2000

Time for filing application for review extended where delay was trivial and no prejudice existed.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision one day after the time limit expired.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for filing, noting the delay was trivial, the required trust monies were paid on time, and there was no prejudice to the responding parties.

The matter was referred to the Manager of Field Services for processing.

Ed Gresham v. Jillian Allingham, 2000 CanLII 11789

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 30, 2000

Application for review of Order to Pay dismissed for failure to file proper application.

The applicant sought to review an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay but failed to file the proper application form with the Board.

The applicant also missed the 45-day time limit and did not respond to the Board's directions to request an extension or file the correct form.

The Board concluded no application was actually made, dismissed the matter, and directed the Director to pay out the monies held in trust.

Jaima Corporation v. Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 12945

David A. McKee