D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 4, 2000

Application for review of Order to Pay terminated following parties' execution of Minutes of Settlement.

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

The employer and the employee entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve the matter and requested the disbursement of funds held in trust by the Director.

The Board ordered the funds disbursed in accordance with the settlement and terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.

Conforti Holdings Ltd. v. Theresa (Perri) Crosbie, 2000 CanLII 4246

Richard Drmaj

10 cases1995–2003

N. L. Jesin

70 cases1987–2001

Manual Bastos

C. Calligan

4 cases1992–2001

A. M. Minsky

G. Pickell

D. L. Gee

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 9, 1999

Board affirms assignment of scaffolding tending work to carpenters based on area practice and efficiency.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837 filed a jurisdictional dispute claiming that its members should have been assigned to tend carpenters erecting and dismantling scaffolding for Doug Chalmers Construction Limited at an Esso Refinery Plant.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered factors including collective agreements, safety, skill and training, economy and efficiency, and area practice.

The Board found that while some factors favoured the labourers, the factors of area practice (specifically the practice of specialty scaffolding contractors) and economy and efficiency strongly favoured the carpenters.

The Board affirmed the employer's assignment of the work exclusively to the carpenters.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837 v. Doug Chalmers Construction Limited, 1999 CanLII 20167

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 20, 1999

Termination application dismissed as employer initiated the decertification petition; adjournment request denied.

The applicant sought to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

On the first day of the hearing, an agent for the applicant's counsel requested an adjournment and a change of venue to Thunder Bay, which the Board denied, noting the request was essentially a reconsideration of a prior decision and lacked merit.

The applicant's agent then withdrew, and the employer did not attend.

The Board proceeded to hear the union's evidence, which established that the applicant had circulated the decertification petition on work time with the employer's knowledge and had negotiated with the employer for wage increases if the union was decertified.

The Board found the employer initiated the termination application and dismissed it under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union's unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed as no specific relief was requested.

John Deruiter v. T.W.A. Canada, Local 2693 Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada, 1999 CanLII 19500

Tim Hadwen

8 cases1999–2003

Steven Barrett

15 cases1984–2017

Randy Bennett

22 cases1999–2012

Michele Migus

Michael Fleishman

9 cases1988–2007

Doug Lefaive

5 cases1999–2001

Donald K. Eady

20 cases1990–2005

Debra Parkes

2 cases1999–1999

Catherine Green

3 cases1999–2001

Brian Woewen

R. R. Montague

J. A. Rundle

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 2, 1999

Certification application dismissed as applicant comprised of lawyers is not an organization of employees.

The Association of Law Officers of the Crown (ALOC) applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of articling students employed by the provincial government.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), which already represented the students, intervened and challenged ALOC's status as a trade union.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application, finding that under section 1(3)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, lawyers are not considered employees.

Consequently, ALOC, being comprised of lawyers, was not an 'organization of employees' and therefore lacked trade union status.

The Vice-Chair dissented, arguing that Crown lawyers are employees under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993, and that ALOC retained its previously recognized trade union status.

Association of Law Officers of the Crown v. The Crown in Right of Ontario, 1999 CanLII 19978

Michael S. Ruddy

19 cases1983–2001

Harold F. CalEy

12 cases1980–2000

Gary Caroline

26 cases1988–2012

Daniel Randazzo

15 cases1993–2001

C. Hofley

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 25, 1999

Termination of bargaining rights granted; single employer declaration applies for all purposes under the Act.

Employees applied to terminate the Teamsters' bargaining rights in the ICI and roads sectors of the construction industry.

The Board determined that the proper responding party in the roads sector application was the Teamsters alone, not an uncertified council of trade unions.

The Board also held that the employer was properly identified as Tomlinson, Tarcon, and Beaver together, given a prior single employer declaration.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in opposition to the union, the termination applications were granted.

Quinn v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local Union 91, 1999 CanLII 19987

G. Pickell

D. L. Gee

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 19, 1999

Request for reconsideration of work assignment decision denied; Board affirmed its discretionary approach to jurisdictional disputes.

The Labourers requested that the Board reconsider its decision assigning disputed work to the Carpenters.

The Labourers argued that the Board failed to properly apply its criteria for jurisdictional disputes and ignored evidence regarding bridge construction.

The Board held that it has discretion to consider relevant factors on a case-by-case basis and is not bound to mechanically apply a formula.

The Board found no reason to depart from its original assessment of area and employer practice, and denied the request for reconsideration.

Carpenters & Allied Workers Local 27 v. Labourers International Union of North America, Local 183, 1999 CanLII 20017

Ucal Powell

4 cases1992–1999

Roy Filion

55 cases1987–2019

Roger Quinn

3 cases1991–2000

Paul Richer

5 cases1991–1999

Manny Fines

D. J. Shields

6 cases1991–2008

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

Daryn Jeifries

A. M. Minsky

G. Pickell

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 5, 1999

A. Haward.F.

OLRB0 cases1999–1999

Board upholds employer's assignment of concrete forming work on bridge projects to Carpenters over Labourers.

The Carpenters' union and the Labourers' union disputed the assignment of the carpentry portion of concrete forming work on two bridge projects in Board Area No. 8.

The employer, Ellis-Don Ltd., had assigned the work to the Carpenters.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered factors including employer practice, area practice, employer preference, and economy and efficiency.

The Board found that these factors supported the assignment of the disputed work to the Carpenters, while the remaining factors were neutral.

The Board ruled that the disputed work was properly assigned to the Carpenters.

Carpenters & Allied Workers Local 27 v. Labourers International Union of North America, Local 183, 1999 CanLII 19954

Vaughn Adamson

Richard Blair

131 cases1987–2020

Pat Honsberger

2 cases1998–2000

Marlene Gerrard

Glenna Newton-Long

Elizabeth Pearce

Chris White

6 cases1993–2000

Barbara Schwalny

Anita Woolman

R. R. Montague

J. A. Rundle

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 22, 1998

Nurses in a home care program found to be dependent contractors and employees for certification purposes.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification to represent nurses employed in a home care program by the responding party hospital.

The hospital argued that the nurses were independent contractors, not employees.

The Board examined the relationship, noting the nurses' integration into the home care program, lack of negotiation over pay rates, and limited entrepreneurial opportunity.

The Board concluded that the nurses were dependent contractors and therefore employees under the Act, and granted the certification.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Huntsville District Memorial Hospital (Algonquin Health Services), 1998 CanLII 18261

Walter Thornton

47 cases1986–2001

Vince Brannigan

2 cases1998–1998

T. Oldham

3 cases1986–1998

Livio Balanzin

4 cases1992–1999

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

D. Buttazzoni

3 cases1994–1998

David W. T. Matheson

5 cases1990–1998

A. Leduc

3 cases1998–1998

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 29, 1998

Termination application dismissed as applicants working under a different union's agreement were not in the bargaining unit.

The applicants, members of Local 598, filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the Bricklayers union.

The Bricklayers argued the application must fail because the applicants were not 'employees in the bargaining unit' under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that on the date of the application, the applicants were performing work under the Local 598 collective agreement, not the Bricklayers' collective agreement.

Applying the principles from April Waterproofing, the Board concluded the applicants were not employees in the Bricklayers' bargaining unit and dismissed the termination application.

Hull Ollivierrie et al. v. The International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Local 2 et al., 1998 CanLII 18388

M. Patrick Moran

36 cases1982–2011

Jerry Raso

73 cases1990–2024

Bernard Fishbein

79 cases1982–2011

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 7, 1998

Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; owner's denial of security clearance to subcontractor's employee did not violate Act.

The applicant union filed a grievance and an unfair labour practice complaint after a union member, dispatched to work for a subcontractor at an Ontario Hydro nuclear facility, was denied security clearance by Ontario Hydro and subsequently laid off.

The union alleged that Ontario Hydro's refusal to defend the application of its security clearance policy in the grievance proceedings violated sections 56, 57(1), and 70 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the unfair labour practice complaint, finding that Ontario Hydro was not the employer of the dispatched worker and had no contractual obligation under the collective agreement to substantiate the subcontractor's decision not to hire.

The Board further held that a general contractor or owner requiring the removal of a subcontractor's employee for security reasons does not constitute unlawful interference with trade union representation.

Ontario Allied Construction Trades Council v. Electrical Power Systems Construction Association, 1998 CanLII 18392

Robert Gibson

In Private Practice21 cases1998–2025

John Moszynski

71 cases1986–2017

Brian Madigan

Art Adams

2 cases1998–2000

G. Pickell

D. L. Gee

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 25, 1998

Jurisdictional dispute over operation of excavators with rock drill attachments dismissed.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, claiming that the operation of excavators with rock drill attachments on a pipeline project should have been assigned to its members rather than the responding union.

The Board found that the operation of the excavators fell within the jurisdiction of the responding union, regardless of the specific work the equipment was being used to perform.

The application was dismissed.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 493 v. Steen Pipelines, 1998 CanLII 18402

Stewart Saxe

10 cases1988–2001

Mary Hart

6 cases1989–2012

Marie McCammont

James Jackson

2 cases1986–1998

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 9, 1998

Representation vote delayed and initial vote nullified due to anticipated build up in bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of mini bar attendants at the responding party's hotel.

The hotel requested that the representation vote be delayed due to an anticipated 'build up' in the bargaining unit following extensive renovations that would increase the number of rooms from 90 to 348.

The Board applied the build up doctrine, finding it relatively certain that the number of mini bar attendants would increase from two to five or six within a reasonable period.

The Board declared the initial representation vote a nullity and directed that a new vote be taken once more than fifty percent of the anticipated complement was hired.

International Beverage Dispensers' and Bartenders' Union Local 280 v. Grand Bay Hotel, 1998 CanLII 18400

M. Bastos

Suspended Administratively53 cases1980–2001

Joseph Liberman

Jake Sudac

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

Bob Yakiwchuk

A. M. Minsky

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 11, 1998

Concrete formwork for airport glycol storage tanks falls within the sewer and watermain sector, not the ICI sector.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837 filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of concrete formwork for glycol storage tanks at the Hamilton International Airport.

The work had been assigned to the Labourers by Dufferin Construction Co. The Carpenters claimed the work fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The Board determined that the tanks merely held glycol for recycling and were not connected to any processing facility, making them part of the sewer and watermain sector rather than the ICI sector.

Consequently, the assignment of the work to the Labourers was upheld.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 837 v. Dufferin Construction Co., 1998 CanLII 18302

Richard Anstruther

7 cases1994–2001

Paul J. J. Cavalluzzo

5 cases1981–1998

A. M. Minsky

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 10, 1998

Voluntary recognition agreement invalidated where union lacked pre-existing site-specific bargaining rights for relocated grocery store.

The applicant union (UFCW) applied for certification of employees at a newly opened Loeb grocery store.

The employer and an intervenor union (USWA) argued that a collective agreement was already in place for the new store, barring the application.

The USWA previously held site-specific bargaining rights for a nearby Loeb store that closed the day before the new store opened.

The employer and USWA had entered into a new collective agreement for the new store and staffed it largely with employees from the closed store.

The Board found that the USWA had no pre-existing legal entitlement to represent employees at the new location, and that the new agreement constituted a voluntary recognition agreement.

Under section 66 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board declared that the USWA was not entitled to represent the employees at the time the agreement was entered into, as there was insufficient evidence of employee choice or participation.

The agreement was declared inoperative, rendering the UFCW's certification application timely.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175 v. Loeb Inc., 1998 CanLII 18315

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 27, 1998

Board orders mandatory representation vote for part-time unit under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board previously determined that separate full-time and part-time bargaining units were appropriate for the operations of the Corporation of Loyalist Township.

Following a representation vote for the full-time unit, the Board appointed the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2150 as the bargaining agent and terminated the bargaining rights of the Service Employees International Union, Local 663 for those employees.

Regarding the part-time unit, the employer argued no vote was necessary as there were no unionized part-time employees on the change-over date.

The Board disagreed, holding that section 23(2) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 mandates a representation vote to determine bargaining agents and is the only mechanism to terminate existing bargaining rights.

The Board ordered a vote for the part-time unit.

The Corporation of Loyalist Township v. Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2150, 1998 CanLII 18323

Sophia Duguay

In Private Practice4 cases1998–2008

Kees Kort

5 cases1992–2000

Diane Pearce

Arnold Adams

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 1, 1998

Board orders separate full-time and part-time bargaining units following municipal amalgamation to maintain historical status quo.

Following the amalgamation of three municipalities into Loyalist Township, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit structure under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The employer and the dominant trade union, CUPE, argued for two separate units for full-time and part-time employees, reflecting the historical status quo.

SEIU argued for a single all-employee unit.

The Board ordered two separate bargaining units, finding that maintaining the historical separation of full-time and part-time employees best served the purposes of the Act.

The Corporation of Loyalist Township v. Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2150, 1998 CanLII 18288

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 7, 1998

Board dismisses objections to representation vote and declares CUPE Local One as bargaining agent.

Following representation votes, CUPE Local 11 filed objections regarding vote locations, dates, and alleged improper telephone campaigning by CUPE Local One.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to enquire into the objections under s. 23(19) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, finding that the alleged irregularities would not have affected the outcome of the votes and that the allegations of improper conduct were both untimely and unfounded.

The Board declared CUPE Local One as the bargaining agent for the inside and outside employees of the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission.

Utility Workers of Canada v. Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission, 1998 CanLII 18332

Sheryl Johnson

7 cases1998–2016

Rocky Pantalone

Pino Trentedue

Suspended Administratively53 cases1980–2001

M. Lewis

11 cases1991–2001

J. Vala

2 cases1998–1999

Joseph Liberman

D. L. Gee

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 16, 1998

Board permits cross-examination of own witness and finds service workers eligible to vote in certification.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, a dispute arose regarding the eligibility of three individuals to vote.

The applicant union was required by Board policy to call one of the individuals as a witness, but sought to cross-examine him when his evidence proved adverse.

The Board permitted the cross-examination in the interests of justice.

On the merits, the Board rejected the responding party's argument that 'service work' is inherently not construction labourers' work.

Examining the specific tasks performed on the application date, the Board found that all three individuals spent a majority of their day performing work falling within the construction labourers' bargaining unit, and were therefore eligible to vote.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183 v. National Homes Inc., 1998 CanLII 18420

Sheryl Johnston

Suspended Administratively53 cases1980–2001

Joseph Liberman

John Moszynski

71 cases1986–2017

D. L. Gee