David A. McKee

David A. McKee

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 30, 2000

Consent order issued resolving grievances over manning provisions and unfair labour practice complaint for witness intimidation.

The applicant union referred two grievances to arbitration and filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer and two individuals, alleging violations of the collective agreement's manning provisions and witness intimidation.

The parties reached a Memorandum of Settlement to fully resolve the matters without a hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement, which included declarations of collective agreement and statutory violations, cease and desist orders, and posting requirements.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. 1130887 Ontario Inc. o/a Latta Crane Services, 2000 CanLII 13405

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Representation vote directed in construction industry certification application for aluminum siding installers.

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

The responding party disputed that the persons in the bargaining unit were properly described as carpenters, but the Board noted that installing aluminum siding has previously been found to fall within a carpenters' bargaining unit.

Finding that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support, the Board directed that a representation vote be held for the proposed bargaining unit.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Top Vinyl & Aluminum Contracting Inc., 2000 CanLII 3800

G. Pickell

David A. McKee

A. Haward

Reconsideration of default decision denied; risk of fax machine failure falls on the receiving party.

The responding party applied for reconsideration of a default decision finding it liable for a construction industry grievance.

The responding party claimed it did not file a Notice of Intent to Defend (Form A-87) because its fax machine received but failed to print the application.

The Board applied the four-part test from Weinmann Electric Limited and found the responding party failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the default, as the risk of equipment failure falls on the party maintaining it.

The Board also found the responding party's defence on the merits was weak.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed, and the matter was directed to a hearing to quantify damages.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1059 v. Traugott Construction (Kitchener) Limited, 2000 CanLII 13390

David A. McKee

Intervenor status denied to employer seeking to challenge union's status in a separate certification application.

The applicant union sought certification and its status as a trade union was raised as an issue.

Minto Communities (Toronto) Inc. requested intervenor status to make submissions on the applicant's trade union status, arguing it had an interest because the applicant had filed a separate certification application regarding Minto's employees.

The Board denied Minto intervenor status, finding that any determination in this file would not be binding on the panel seized with the Minto application, and the applicant undertook not to rely on any decision in this file as prima facie proof in the Minto application.

Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A., Local 183 v. Coughlan Homes Inc., 2000 CanLII 13129

David A. McKee

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application against the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

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

Dale H. Chamberlin v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (O.P.S.E.U.), 2000 CanLII 10800

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Board revoked previous decision and adjourned hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board revoked its decision of March 28, 2000, and adjourned the hearing originally scheduled for March 29, 2000, to April 11, 2000.

Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Local 10 v. 620230 Ontario Inc. o/a TS Masonry, 2000 CanLII 6086

L. P. Kavanaugh, Q. C.

3 cases1998–2000

Kevin Elliott

4 cases1994–2018

A. M. Minsky, Q. C.

8 cases1984–2000

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Decertification application dismissed; employer unlawfully discharged painter to eliminate construction employees on application date.

The Greater Essex County District School Board applied under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate the Painters' Provincial Collective Agreement, claiming it was a non-construction employer with no construction employees on the application date.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint, alleging the employer unlawfully laid off a painter days before the application to ensure no construction employees were working.

The Board found the layoff was a discharge motivated by a desire to facilitate the decertification application, violating sections 70 and 72(a).

Consequently, under section 1(2), the discharged painter was deemed an employee on the application date.

Furthermore, the Board found that another employee performing painting work on the application date was engaged in construction, not maintenance.

The decertification application was dismissed, and the unfair labour practice complaint was allowed.

Greater Essex County District School Board v. International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1494, 2000 CanLII 12534

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 28, 2000

Hearing adjourned sine die at the applicant's request without requiring the responding parties' consent.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for March 29, 2000.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment sine die.

The Board noted that the responding parties had filed a Notice of Intent to Defend and, pursuant to Rule 162, were not entitled to participate in the proceedings regarding the adjournment, rendering their consent unnecessary.

Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Local 10 v. 620230 Ontario Inc. o/a TS Masonry, 2000 CanLII 8704

David A. McKee

Certification application dismissed for insufficient membership evidence; discretionary one-year bar on future applications denied.

The applicant trade union applied for certification but failed to file membership evidence for at least 40 per cent of the bargaining unit.

The responding employer requested that the Board exercise its discretion under section 111(2)(k) of the Labour Relations Act to impose a one-year bar on further applications.

The Board dismissed the certification application and directed the destruction of the ballots pursuant to section 8.1(5), paragraph 7.

The Board declined to impose a discretionary bar, noting that section 10(4) specifically exempts dismissals under section 8.1(5) from the mandatory one-year bar, and finding no evidence of an abuse of process.

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Supply Chain Management Inc., 2000 CanLII 12398

David A. McKee

Application terminated following Minutes of Settlement between the parties.

The applicant, Dominion Castings Limited, filed an application involving the United Steelworkers of America and the Ministry of Labour.

Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement entered into by the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application terminated.

Dominion Castings Limited v. United Steelworkers of America, 2000 CanLII 2952

David A. McKee

Parties directed to file submissions on scheduling an OHSA application and a jurisdictional dispute together.

The Board issued a procedural direction regarding two applications arising from the same construction project: an OHSA application and a jurisdictional dispute under the LRA.

Noting that jurisdictional disputes are typically scheduled as consultations while OHSA applications proceed by way of hearing, the Vice-Chair directed the parties to file submissions on how the two matters should be scheduled.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., 2000 CanLII 12258

J. G. Knight

David A. McKee

A. Haward

Board orders representation vote in certification application but directs ballots be sealed pending union status determination.

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

The Board noted issues with the applicant's trade union status and the form of its membership evidence, directing that any ballots cast in a representation vote be sealed until status is established.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote to be held on March 28, 2000.

Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183 v. Steel Technologies Framing Inc., 2000 CanLII 13587

David A. McKee

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application against the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and the Ministry of Labour.

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

Michele M. Rae v. Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, 2000 CanLII 1829

J. G. Knight

David A. McKee

A. Haward

Representation vote cancelled to allow parties to address issues raised by intervenor.

The intervenor, Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, filed an intervention raising issues similar to another recent case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board cancelled the scheduled representation vote to allow the applicant and responding party time to address the issues raised in the intervention, and set a schedule for written submissions.

Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183 v. Steel Technologies Framing Inc., 2000 CanLII 12477

J. G. Knight

David A. McKee

A. Haward

Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure majority support in representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further applications for certification by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 785 v. Losereit Limited, 2000 CanLII 7288

David A. McKee

Application for review terminated due to applicant's failure to file the required forms.

The applicant sought a review of a refusal to issue an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board notified the applicant that the application was not filed on the correct form and granted a 20-day extension to file properly.

The applicant failed to file the required forms within the extended time limit.

Consequently, the Board terminated the matter.

Mark Stern v. Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 4620

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Default judgment granted against employer for unpaid wages and benefits following failure to respond.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding employer failed to pay correct wages and benefits.

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 responding party was deemed to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the employer violated the collective agreement and ordered payment of $9,763.50 in unpaid wages and benefits, plus $214.00 for the filing fee.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1081 v. Doug Wright Construction Ltd., 2000 CanLII 6698

David A. McKee

Application for review of Order to Pay terminated due to employer's failure to file correct forms.

The employer sought an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board notified the employer that the application was not filed on the correct form and granted a 20-day extension to file properly.

The employer failed to submit the required forms within the extended time limit.

Consequently, the Board terminated the matter.

Laureen’s Grocery and Gas v. Sylvia Stuart, 2000 CanLII 6876

J. G. Knight

David A. McKee

A. Haward