D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 7, 2000

Application to suspend occupational health and safety inspector's orders pending appeal dismissed.

The applicant employer sought to suspend an Occupational Health and Safety inspector's orders pending an appeal on the merits.

The Board applied the three-part test for suspension and found that suspending the order would diminish worker safety, the applicant failed to articulate material prejudice, and there was no strong prima facie case for a successful appeal.

The application for suspension was dismissed.

Jeti Heating Inc. v. Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 11739

D. L. Gee

Employment standards review resolved by settlement; funds held in trust ordered disbursed.

The applicant employer sought 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 funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $728 paid to the employer, $728 paid to the employee, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Balchip Corporation v. Fine, 2000 CanLII 9014

D. L. Gee

Motion to suspend occupational health and safety inspector's order pending appeal dismissed.

The applicant employer sought the suspension of an Occupational Health and Safety inspector's order pending an appeal.

The order required the employer to ensure that a double picker was loaded safely and product was not stacked above the backrest.

Applying the three-part test for suspending an inspector's order, the Board found that suspending the order would diminish worker safety, the employer failed to articulate any material negative effect of compliance, and the employer did not present a strong prima facie case for a successful appeal.

The request for a suspension was dismissed.

Loblaw Companies Limited v. Mike Hartman and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 11738

Application for certification dismissed after union failed to secure majority in representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

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

Millwrights Union Local 1244 v. International Fabricating and Machining, 2000 CanLII 9980

D. L. Gee

OLRB orders disbursement of trust funds in accordance with parties' Minutes of Settlement.

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 Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the disbursement of the funds held in trust in accordance with the settlement, with a portion returned to the employer, a portion paid to the employee, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Richmond Hill Toyota v. Carmelo Esposito and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 6037

J. Knight

G. McMenemy

D. L. Gee

Representation vote ordered in construction industry certification application following union name change.

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

The Board recognized the applicant as a trade union, noting a recent authorized name change.

Finding that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union, the Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Glaziers Local 1819 v. Barrie Glass & Mirror Ltd., 2000 CanLII 8797

D. L. Gee

In Private Practice64 cases1985–2025

Board directs two related matters to be heard concurrently and declines to delay proceedings.

The Board issued a procedural decision regarding the scheduling of two related matters involving the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506, and Ellis-Don Construction Ltd. The Board directed that the matters be heard concurrently at a hearing/consultation and declined a request to delay the proceedings pending the outcome of another Board file, as the parties disputed the similarity of the issues and no submissions were provided to establish the similarity.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 v. Ellis-Don Construction Ltd., 2000 CanLII 12259

Sam Morra

3 cases1996–2000

Rod Petrie

1 case2000–2000

Robert Leone

7 cases1995–2001

Richard J. Charney

John Moszynski

71 cases1986–2017

Jim Fyshe

8 cases1991–2001

Erin Kuzz

13 cases1997–2015

Bob Humphreys

1 case2000–2000

G. Pickell

D. L. Gee

A. Haward

Motion to exclude sector issue in work assignment dispute dismissed as issue was raised timely.

In a work assignment dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the responding union brought a preliminary motion arguing that the Board should not deal with the issue of which sector of the construction industry the work fell into because it was not raised in a timely manner.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant union had raised the sector issue squarely in its reply submissions over four weeks prior to the consultation, providing ample warning.

The Board adjourned the consultation to allow notice to be given to other interested parties and set a schedule for further submissions and a hearing.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1089 v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 663, 2000 CanLII 13193

D. L. Gee

Board confirms successful facsimile transmission of form B-67; previous decision remains in effect.

The responding party advised the Board that it did not receive a form B-67.

The Board reviewed its file and noted a successful facsimile transmission sheet confirming the form was faxed to the responding party's business number.

The Board was satisfied the form was received and confirmed that its previous decision of March 29, 2000 remains in force and effect.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2041 v. Cambareri Construction Inc., 2000 CanLII 1182

D. L. Gee

Application withdrawn by leave of the Board.

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

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

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 787 v. Michael Mechanical Services (East) Ltd., 2000 CanLII 4117

D. L. Gee

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

The applicant and responding party 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 neither party requests to proceed.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Construction Council of Ontario v. Multiservice Electric Ltd., 2000 CanLII 7853

J. Knight

G. McMenemy

D. L. Gee

Board corrects previous decision to accurately define the bargaining unit and voting constituency.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision correcting an error in its previous decision dated April 3, 2000.

The Board revoked and replaced paragraphs 6 and 7 of the previous decision to accurately define the appropriate bargaining unit and the voting constituency for a representation vote involving carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in the employ of the responding party.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 446 v. 1335664 Ontario Ltd. o/a J. P. L. Limited, 2000 CanLII 7819

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

D. L. Gee

Board directs representation vote in construction industry certification application, noting 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 responding party disputed the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act.

The Board noted that section 8.1 does not apply to construction industry certification applications.

Finding that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support, the Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Powerline Plus (a Division of Advance Utilities Constructors Inc.), 2000 CanLII 6973

D. L. Gee

Application for review terminated after parties entered into binding Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay against the employer.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer, under which the employer agreed to pay the applicant $1,871.29.

As the settlement resolved all issues in dispute, the Board terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Employment Standards Act.

Bradley Whittaker v. Canon Canada Inc. and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 1116

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

D. L. Gee

Board directs representation vote in timely displacement application for certification in the construction industry.

The applicant union filed an application for certification in the construction industry.

The intervenor union asserted the application should be dismissed due to problematic membership evidence and an existing collective agreement.

The applicant accepted the validity of the collective agreement and requested the application be treated as a timely displacement application.

The Board agreed, amended the bargaining unit description to mirror the existing collective agreement, and directed a representation vote.

Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183 v. Steel Technologies Framing Inc., 2000 CanLII 13126

D. L. Gee

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

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 Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the disbursement of the $1,498.27 held in trust by the Director, with $697.20 returned to the employer, $600.00 paid to the employees, and $201.07 retained as an administration fee.

The employer was also ordered to withdraw its related Statement of Claim.

Townley Apartments v. Theodore & Patsy Burt and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 8690

D. L. Gee

Appeal terminated after applicant abandoned the matter.

The applicant appealed a matter but subsequently wrote to the Board indicating that the appeal was abandoned.

The Board terminated the matter and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

Guy Armstrong v. Johnson Matthey Ltd. and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 1821

D. L. Gee

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

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 Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $750 paid to the employee, $1,330 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

South Bay Marina Limited v. Joanne Longboat Crane and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 8371

G. Pickell

G. McMenemy

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 3, 2000

Default judgment granted against employer for using non-union labour in violation of collective agreement.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party employer used non-union labour in violation of the collective agreement.

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

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 responding party bound by the collective agreement, declared it had violated multiple articles, and ordered it to pay damages and costs.

Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’ International Association of the United States and Canada, Local 124 v. Cambareri Construction Inc., 2000 CanLII 6929

J. Knight

G. McMenemy

D. L. Gee