David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 8, 2000

Grievance referral adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.

The applicant union filed a grievance referral against the responding party employers.

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95 v. 1067615 Ontario Inc. and/or 1335664 Ontario Limited c.o.b. as J.P.L. Contracting, 2000 CanLII 9003

Board directed parties to resolve document production issues via written submissions rather than a hearing.

The applicant union brought applications under sections 1(4), 69, and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties requested a hearing day to deal with issues arising from the production of documents.

The Board declined to schedule a hearing for this purpose, noting that scarce hearing time should not be spent on document production disputes.

Instead, the Board directed the parties to exchange written submissions and documents according to a set schedule, after which the Board would make any necessary orders.

International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 721 v. Big “B” Steel Erectors Inc., 2000 CanLII 12960

G. Pickell

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 7, 2000

Board issues default judgment against employer for unpaid wages and benefits following failure to respond to grievance referral.

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 pay wages, vacation pay, health and welfare contributions, and 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 responding party was deemed to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the employer breached the collective agreement and ordered payment of $2,543.00 in trust for unpaid wages and allowances, plus $214.00 in costs.

Damages for unpaid benefit contributions were deferred to a scheduled hearing.

International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95 v. 1067615 Ontario Inc., 2000 CanLII 11885

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Representation vote directed in construction industry certification application after employer failed to file proper response.

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

The responding party failed to file a proper response within the stipulated time.

The Board found that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union and directed a representation vote to be held.

Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183 v. S.G. Tomosvary & Associates Limited and Golden Palace Construction Inc., 2000 CanLII 9649

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

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

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

Construction Workers Local 53, CLAC v. Ganor Industrial Contractors Inc., 2000 CanLII 3302

David A. McKee

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant requested that his application against Zippy Print o/a Red Zed Graphics and the Ministry of Labour be withdrawn.

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

Malcolm Browne v. Zippy Print o/a Red Zed Graphics, 2000 CanLII 4224

David A. McKee

OLRB orders disbursement of trust funds following settlement of Employment Standards Act appeal.

The applicant employer sought a review of 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 in accordance with the settlement, with a portion returning to the employer, a portion paid to the employee, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Sricon Inc. v. Dilbag Singh Bassan, 2000 CanLII 3607

David A. McKee

Application for review dismissed due to applicant's failure to file the proper forms.

The applicant sought to appeal an Order to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act by submitting a photocopy of a receipt with the word 'APPEAL' written on it.

The Board returned the application, instructing the applicant to file the proper form and provide reasons for the application as required by the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant failed to respond within the allotted time.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application and directed the Director of Employment Standards to pay the monies held in trust to the employee.

Otto Kauffmann v. Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 11929

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

David A. McKee

Representation vote directed in construction industry certification application; section 8.1 does not apply.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and directed a representation vote.

The Board declined the responding party's request to seal the ballot box under section 8.1 of the Act, following precedent that section 8.1 does not apply to the construction industry.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Alcona Aluminum Inc., 2000 CanLII 10048

David A. McKee

Application for review dismissed after applicant failed to file proper forms despite notice.

The applicant sought to appeal an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act by submitting a photocopy of a receipt marked 'Appeal Payment'.

The Board notified the applicant that the application was not filed on the correct form and did not comply with the Rules of Procedure.

The applicant failed to respond or submit the proper forms.

The Board dismissed the application, noting that procedural fairness requires parties to know the basis of the dispute, and directed the Director to pay the monies held in trust to the employee.

1182611 Ontario Inc. o/a Fitzy’s Oyster Bar v. Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 11931

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 2, 2000

Extension of time granted for filing submissions.

The applicant requested an extension of the February 17 date set out in a previous decision.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline for submissions to February 29, 2000, and directed the applicant to deliver copies to the responding parties.

Chun Chun Chen v. Cinram Limited, 2000 CanLII 12590

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 31, 2000

Matter adjourned on consent pending meeting with Labour Relations Officer.

The parties requested an adjournment to a date to be fixed.

The Board granted the adjournment and noted the parties agreed to meet with a Labour Relations Officer to agree on the procedure to be followed.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1059 v. Formrydt Foundations, 2000 CanLII 10835

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 28, 2000

Duty of fair representation complaint held in abeyance as union scheduled grievances for arbitration.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging the union failed to process his 1996 grievances to arbitration.

The union advised the Board that the grievances were scheduled for arbitration at the Grievance Settlement Board.

The Board held the application in abeyance pending confirmation that the arbitration hearing commenced as scheduled.

Dale H. Chamberlin v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union (O.P.S.E.U.), 2000 CanLII 12112

Walter Thornton

47 cases1986–2001

Mark J. Lewis

20 cases1994–2001

Marcia Kredentser

6 cases2000–2001

Lino Vitorio

Frank D'Abbondanza

5 cases1990–2001

Acacio Paulo

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 26, 2000

Board issues related employer and sale of business declarations based on parties' settlement.

The applicants filed applications under subsection 1(4) and section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133.

On the second day of the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement and agreed that the factual bases for relief existed.

The Board declared the responding parties to be one employer and found a transfer of business had occurred.

The grievance referral was terminated based on the settlement.

Masonry Council of Unions, Toronto and Vicinity v. El Vee Masonry Ltd., 2000 CanLII 13062

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 25, 2000

Application directed to be scheduled for a hearing on the merits and referred for settlement discussions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that the application be scheduled for a hearing on the merits.

The Board also referred the matter to the Manager of Field Services to determine if further settlement discussions would be fruitful once a hearing date was set.

Moira Stott-Merrithew et al. v. Joan Kwan and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 12358

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 25, 2000

Application for reconsideration dismissed as no new information or reasons were provided.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous Board decision that had dismissed his application due to delay.

The applicant argued against the Board's practice of having the same Vice-Chair review the reconsideration request, citing another case.

The Board clarified that the cited case did not demonstrate a contrary practice and found no new information or reasons to reconsider its previous decisions.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

Chun C. Chen v. Cinram International Inc., 2000 CanLII 13032

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 25, 2000

Applicant directed to provide written submissions on jurisdiction for review of Employment Standards Officer decision.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying their claim.

The Officer denied the claim because it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period and was identical to a previously disposed complaint.

The Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions on the basis for the Board's jurisdiction to proceed with the claim.

Chun Chun Chen v. Cinram Limited, 2000 CanLII 13311

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 20, 2000

Board orders disbursement of funds held in trust pursuant to parties' Minutes of Settlement.

The 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 $4,942.08 held in trust, with $3,992.80 returned to the employer, $500.00 paid to the employee, and $449.28 retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund as an administration fee.

ABCO Moving Services Inc. v. Vautour, 2000 CanLII 7866

Vito Santoli

Stefan Pikor

Richard Cushing

Jim Wilkinson

Chris Beatson

B. Blumenthal

9 cases2000–2024

David A. McKee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 20, 2000

Constructor has standing to appeal health and safety orders directed at its subcontractors.

The applicant constructor appealed health and safety orders issued by an inspector, including orders directed at its subcontractors.

The responding party Ministry of Labour moved to dismiss the appeals regarding the subcontractors' orders, arguing the constructor lacked standing as an 'aggrieved' party under s. 61(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the constructor had standing because s. 23(1)(b) of the Act imposes a legal obligation on the constructor to ensure all subcontractors comply with the Act and regulations.

Tridel Corporation v. Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 12814

David A. McKee