David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 17, 2000

Board declined to dismiss union's allegations on a preliminary basis in a termination application.

In an application for termination of bargaining rights, the intervenor employer requested the Board dismiss the responding union's allegations under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board declined to dismiss the allegations on a preliminary basis, finding that the union was entitled to file further particulars of its original allegations.

The temporal scope of the evidence to be called was left to be determined by the panel hearing the application on the merits.

Robert Anderson v. Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local Union No. 47, 2000 CanLII 13150

Application adjourned sine die on agreement of the parties.

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

The responding parties undertook to make best efforts to provide certain information to the applicant by March 3, 2000.

The Vice-Chair remained seized of the application in the event it is relisted for hearing.

Labourers International Union of North America, Local 527 v. Laurent Leblanc Limited, 2000 CanLII 8105

G. Pickell

G. McMenemy

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 16, 2000

Board grants reconsideration of default grievance decision, establishing a four-factor test for such requests.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration.

The responding party employer failed to file a timely response, resulting in a default decision finding a violation of the collective agreement.

The employer subsequently requested reconsideration of the default decision.

The Board established a four-factor test for reconsidering default decisions under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act.

Applying the factors, the Board found that while the employer's explanation for the default was unreasonable, it had raised a substantial defence to the grievance and there was minimal prejudice to the union.

The Board granted the reconsideration request and directed the employer to file its response.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 303 v. Weinmann Electric Limited, 2000 CanLII 11928

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 15, 2000

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed without a hearing as union reasonably required documentary evidence.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union, alleging it violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to pursue a grievance regarding his seniority date.

The union had requested documentary evidence to support his claim of continuous employment, which the applicant could not provide.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing under Rule 46, finding that the union's insistence on documentary evidence rather than relying on recollections of past promises was reasonable and did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

Robert McGee v. Christian Labour Association of Canada, 2000 CanLII 12884

David A. McKee

Funds held in trust ordered disbursed in accordance with parties' Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the disbursement of the funds held in trust by the Director of Employment Standards in accordance with the settlement, with $5,250.96 to be paid to the employee, $643.00 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The SMR Group v. Silvia Elena Ayala, 2000 CanLII 2076

David A. McKee

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

Brad Bisaillon v. Sydney R. Stone & Co. Ltd., 2000 CanLII 6274

G. Pickell

David A. McKee

A. Haward

Employer found liable for subcontracting grievance by default; hearing scheduled to assess damages.

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

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 and found the employer liable for the violation.

However, the Board found the applicant provided insufficient information to assess the $4,500 in claimed damages, and scheduled a hearing solely to determine the quantum of damages.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1059 v. Traugott Construction (Kitchener) Limited, 2000 CanLII 8729

David A. McKee

Employment Standards Act review resolved by settlement; trust funds disbursed to employee and employer.

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

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the disbursement of the $4,227.21 held in trust by the Director, with $3,000.00 to the employee, $842.92 to the employer, and $384.29 retained as an administration fee.

Northern Decorating Supplies Ltd. v. Robert Alton, 2000 CanLII 3232

David A. McKee

Applications adjourned sine die pending final disposition of related charges.

The applicant brought applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board ordered the matters adjourned sine die pending the final disposition of related charges, with a direction that the applicant advise the Board within 30 days of that disposition whether it wishes to proceed, failing which the applications will be deemed withdrawn.

Harmony Developments II Inc. v. Angelo C. Consales, 2000 CanLII 7268

David A. McKee

Application for review dismissed due to applicant's failure to file proper forms and respond to Registrar.

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

The Registrar returned the application because it was not filed on the correct form and did not comply with the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant was given 20 working days to re-submit the application but failed to respond.

The Board dismissed the application, noting that the obligation to file in the proper form is not merely a technical requirement, as procedural fairness requires opposing parties to know the basis of the dispute.

Cathy Matsumoto v. Ontario Business College (1977) Ltd., 2000 CanLII 11930

G. Pickell

David A. McKee

A. Haward

Application withdrawn at the request of the parties.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.

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

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 837 v. Kvaerner-Jaddco, A Division of Kvaerner Construction Ltd., 2000 CanLII 7217

G. Pickell

David A. McKee

A. Haward

Consent order issued declaring employer bound by collective agreement and ordering $1,100 in damages.

The applicant union filed an application for the arbitration of a grievance under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties filed a Memorandum of Agreement and requested the Board to incorporate it into a consent order.

The Board issued declarations that the responding party is bound by the collective agreement and violated its terms, and ordered the responding party to pay $1,100.00 in damages to the applicant.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 837 v. 961175 Ontario Limited, 2000 CanLII 13446

G. Pickell

David A. McKee

A. Haward

Board finds employer liable for collective agreement violations in default proceeding; damages deferred to hearing.

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 failing to employ union members or improperly subcontracting work.

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 and found the responding party liable for violating the collective agreement.

However, the Board found insufficient information to assess damages and directed that the scheduled hearing proceed solely on the issue of damages.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 894 v. MRM Electric Inc., 2000 CanLII 2999

David A. McKee

Application adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.

The applicant and responding parties 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 party requests to proceed.

Douglas Albert Rogers v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 46 (UA Local 46), 2000 CanLII 7588

David A. McKee

Application for reconsideration dismissed as it relied on previously made arguments and unpersuasive fresh evidence.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a January 10, 2000 Board decision under section 114 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant argued the Board made errors and presented fresh evidence regarding a separate application filed by the responding party.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant was merely repeating arguments made at the original hearing and that the fresh evidence did not support the applicant's conclusions or show collusion.

Canadian Health Care Workers v. Quinte Healthcare Corporation, 2000 CanLII 13091

David A. McKee

Grievance referral adjourned sine die for up to one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the applicants' grievance referral sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The application will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed within that time.

International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Ontario Provincial Conference v. 620280 Ontario Ltd. o/a TS Masonry, 2000 CanLII 4068

David A. McKee

Board ordered disbursement of funds held in trust pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the disbursement of the $4,576.00 held in trust by the Director, with $2,160.00 returned to the employer, $2,000.00 paid to the employee, and the $416.00 administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Ministry of Labour was given ten days to request a hearing if necessary.

Pronto Courier Services (1995) Limited v. Clemente Catena, 2000 CanLII 3946

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 9, 2000

Employer ordered to pay $30,669.38 in damages and fees for collective agreement breaches after failing to attend hearing.

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

Following a previous finding that the responding party employer breached the collective agreement, this hearing was held to assess damages.

The employer failed to attend.

Based on the union's evidence, the Board found the employer owed $29,920.38 for unpaid overtime, unremitted benefit contributions, and unremitted union dues.

The Board also ordered the employer to reimburse the union for the filing fees, resulting in a total order of $30,669.38.

The Ontario Council of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Glaziers Local 200 v. 1197413 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. as Preston and Lieff Glass, 2000 CanLII 13303

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 8, 2000

Applicant directed to provide submissions establishing provincial jurisdiction over a shipping-related employment dispute.

The applicant filed an application under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 against the union.

The Board raised preliminary concerns regarding its territorial and constitutional jurisdiction, noting the applicant's address in Nova Scotia and the employer's involvement in shipping and navigation, which falls under federal jurisdiction.

The Board directed the applicant to provide submissions establishing the Board's jurisdiction by March 1, 2000, failing which the application may be dismissed.

Halfpenny v. Canadian Auto Workers Local 4401, 2000 CanLII 12580

David A. McKee