David A. McKee

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 26, 2000

Default judgment granted against employer for subcontracting violation; ordered to pay damages and filing fees.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party violated the collective agreement by subcontracting work to a non-union employer.

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 alleged in the application.

The Board found the responding party in violation of the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $29,792.88 in damages and $214.00 for filing fees.

Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183 v. Sanan Construction/(961488 Ontario Limited), 2000 CanLII 7296

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 26, 2000

Application adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The Ontario Council of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades v. Arranwood Painting & Decorating, 2000 CanLII 7525

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Employer found liable for unpaid contributions and dues on default in construction industry grievance.

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 make required payments to various funds and failed to deduct union dues.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

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

The Ontario Council of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 46 v. Arranwood Painting & Decorating, 2000 CanLII 9320

David A. McKee

Applications adjourned sine die on consent for up to one year.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the applications sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the applications will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 v. Cablecom International Network Cabling, 2000 CanLII 4879

David A. McKee

Board directs applicant to file complete statement of facts regarding alleged non-compliance with previous order.

The applicant union filed a communication with the Board alleging non-compliance with a previous Board order dated May 11, 2000.

The Board found the communication premature, as the final implementation of the plan was not effective until August 1, 2000.

The Board directed the applicant to file a complete statement of material facts and serve it on the responding parties if it wished to pursue the matter.

CAW-Canada, Local 222 v. General Motors of Canada, 2000 CanLII 3397

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Grievance referral hearing adjourned because Notice of Hearing was not sent to responding party.

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

Although the applicant properly served the responding party, the Board's file did not indicate that a Confirmation of Filing and Notice of Hearing had been sent to the responding party.

Consequently, the Board determined it was not possible to proceed with the scheduled hearing and directed the Registrar to fix a new date.

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (formerly known as the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades), District Council 46 (Local 1671) v. Lakeland Industrial Cleaning Ltd., 2000 CanLII 7833

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 22, 2000

Request to reconsider certification decision dismissed for lack of standing and delay.

The applicant union sought reconsideration of a March 2, 2000 decision granting a certificate to the intervenor association, and filed further particulars regarding an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board declined to reconsider the certification decision, finding that the applicant did not represent any employee who was in the bargaining unit at the time of the original application, and that the request was brought two years after the original application.

The Board directed the responding parties to respond to the further particulars filed in the unfair labour practice complaint.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 527 v. Karson Kartage & Konstruction (1994) Limited, 2000 CanLII 12895

J. G. Knight

David A. McKee

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 22, 2000

Board orders new representation vote and destruction of previous uncounted ballots.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered a new representation vote in a certification application.

The ballots from the initial vote held on March 31, 2000, were ordered destroyed without being counted.

A second representation vote was scheduled for June 29, 2000, with further reasons to follow.

Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183 v. Metal Tech Systems Inc., 2000 CanLII 1462

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 21, 2000

Employer's application for reconsideration to impose a bar on a dismissed union certification application denied.

The responding employer applied for reconsideration of a Board decision dismissing a union certification application without imposing a bar.

The employer argued the union's letter constituted a withdrawal and that the union knew it lacked the requisite 40% membership support, warranting a bar on future applications.

The Board found the letter was an acknowledgement of failure, not a withdrawal, and concluded there was no evidence the union cynically submitted invalid cards or knew it lacked sufficient support.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to impose a bar, and the application for reconsideration was dismissed.

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Supply Chain Management Inc., 2000 CanLII 13315

G. Pickell

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 19, 2000

Board finds a crane rental yard is a 'project' allowing unilateral union steward appointment.

The union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by refusing to recognize the appointment of a union steward for its Toronto yard.

The employer argued that a yard is not a 'project' under the agreement, and therefore the appointment was for a 'company-wide steward' which required employer consent.

The Board interpreted the collective agreement and found that, in the context of the crane and equipment rental business, the yard constitutes a 'project'.

Consequently, the union had the right to unilaterally appoint the steward, and the employer was directed to recognize the appointment.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. 1130887 Ontario Inc. o/a Latta Crane Services, 2000 CanLII 12915

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 16, 2000

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

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

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local Union 1819 v. Rybrek Construction, 2000 CanLII 7791

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 16, 2000

Board grants union certification, finding window repair work performed on application date fell within glazier trade.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of glaziers and metal mechanics employed by the responding party.

The sole issue was whether the work performed by three employees on the application date—repairing defective window installations at a correctional facility—fell within the trade of a glazier.

The Board found that the core activity was creating a vapour barrier and sealing the window, which is glazier work, and that incidental tasks did not change the characterization.

The Board concluded the employees were within the bargaining unit and, based on a representation vote, granted the certification.

International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Glaziers Local 1819 v. Rybrek Construction, 2000 CanLII 11989

R. Harford

2 cases2000–2001

L. Steinberg

46 cases1982–2003

G. Rontiris

1 case2000–2000

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 12, 2000

Board determines whether various HVAC work orders constitute construction or maintenance work.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the responding party employer failed to apply the collective agreement to certain work.

The central issue was whether various HVAC repair and service tasks performed by the employer constituted 'construction' or 'maintenance' work.

The Board analyzed a sample of work orders, applying the established test that construction involves additions or restoring a non-functioning system, while maintenance preserves an operating system.

The Board allowed the grievance for some work orders (found to be maintenance) and dismissed it for others (found to be construction or where the union failed to meet its evidentiary burden).

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 787 v. Francis H.V.A.C. Services Ltd., 2000 CanLII 13330

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 9, 2000

Applicant directed to respond to union's factual allegations before Board decides on prima facie dismissal.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The union filed a response and requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case under Rule 46 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board found that the application contained sufficient detail to arguably make out a case, but expressed concern regarding the union's allegations that the applicant sought to undo a settlement only after his alternate employment provided inadequate income.

The Board directed the applicant to file a statement responding to the union's factual allegations before scheduling a consultation.

Sobeski v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Local 636, 2000 CanLII 13034

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 5, 2000

Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure more than 50% in representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where the applicant received not more than 50% of the ballots cast, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on further applications for certification by the applicant for this bargaining unit was imposed.

Canadian Independent Union of Manufacturing Employees v. Waterloo Furniture Components Ltd., 2000 CanLII 7041

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 31, 2000

Ballots in termination application to be counted after union withdrew employer interference allegations.

The applicant brought an application for termination of the responding party union's bargaining rights.

A representation vote was conducted and the ballot box was sealed pending the union's allegations of employer initiation and intimidation under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

At the conclusion of evidence, the union withdrew its allegations and agreed to count the ballots.

The Board referred the application to the Manager of Field Services to arrange the counting of the ballots.

Robert Anderson v. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local Union No. 47, 2000 CanLII 12155

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 31, 2000

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

Francis H.V.A.C. Services Ltd. v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 787, 2000 CanLII 2302

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 29, 2000

Reprisal complaint dismissed without a hearing as the applicant did not allege exercising rights under the OHSA.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging that her employer terminated her employment after she requested a transfer to a different work area due to back problems.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing pursuant to Rule 46.

The Board found that the applicant did not allege she was exercising a right under the Act or that the employer's actions were a reprisal for such an exercise.

Even assuming the facts in the application were true, they did not disclose a violation of the Act.

Elvira Cabrera v. Pasta Amore Corporation, 2000 CanLII 11786

G. Pickell

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee