Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 8, 2001

Extension of time to file submissions on reconsideration application granted due to counsel illness.

The applicant and a responding union local sought a one-week extension to file submissions regarding an application for reconsideration made by the responding municipality.

Counsel for the applicant cited illness and the unavailability of the national representative as reasons for the request.

The municipality objected to the extension.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the extension, finding that the request was made promptly, reasonable grounds were provided, and a one-week delay would not unduly prejudice any party.

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4705 v. City of Greater Sudbury, 2001 CanLII 6751

Request for reconsideration of jurisdictional dispute decision dismissed as applicant failed to show consistent area practice.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision regarding a jurisdictional dispute over masonry restoration work, arguing the Board should have conducted a hearing to receive evidence on area practice.

The Board dismissed the request, noting it had the statutory authority to determine the matter without a hearing.

The Board further observed that the applicant's own submissions indicated it had not previously performed the disputed work in the relevant geographic area, contradicting its claim of a consistent area practice.

Clifford Restoration Limited v. Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, 2001 CanLII 19146

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 4, 2001

Board invites submissions from unions regarding City's request to clarify bargaining agent identities upon amalgamation.

The City of Greater Sudbury applied for reconsideration of a prior Board decision, seeking clarification on the identity of the bargaining agents for its employees following a municipal amalgamation.

The Board directed the applicant and CUPE Local 148 to file submissions in response to the City's request before making a final determination.

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4705 v. City of Greater Sudbury, 2001 CanLII 10398

Harry Freedman

Representation vote ordered in construction industry certification application after union established 40% membership appearance.

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

The responding party failed to file a response.

The Board found that the applicant established an appearance of membership of not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 46 v. A & E Plumbing Ltd., 2001 CanLII 4576

Harry Freedman

Representation vote directed in application to terminate union's bargaining rights.

The applicant employees applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The Unionized Employees of Ariss Concrete Forming Ltd. v. Labourers’ International Union of North America Ontario Provincial District Council, 2001 CanLII 5775

Harry Freedman

Representation vote directed in construction industry displacement application for certification.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification in the construction industry, seeking to displace the intervenor as the bargaining agent for the responding party's employees.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible individuals in the voting constituency.

Allied Construction Employees, Local 1030 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. A.R.A. Construction Ltd., 2001 CanLII 16051

Harry Freedman

Representation vote directed in construction industry certification application to displace incumbent union.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking to displace the intervenor union as the bargaining agent for the responding party's employees.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

Allied Construction Employees, Local 1030 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Neway Construction Ltd., 2001 CanLII 18787

Harry Freedman

Representation vote ordered in displacement application for certification in the construction industry.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit appeared to be members of the applicant.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees to determine whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor.

Allied Construction Employees Local 1030 v. The Georgian Group Inc., 2001 CanLII 19720

Harry Freedman

Intervention in certification application deemed untimely as it was filed after the two-day deadline.

The applicant union applied for certification and the Board directed a representation vote.

Local 183 filed an intervention by Priority Courier, which was received by the Board more than two days after the application was delivered.

The Board ruled that under Rule 129, an intervention is not an application, so the filing date is the date of receipt, not the date it was sent.

Consequently, the intervention was untimely, though Local 183 was not precluded from seeking leave to intervene after the representation vote.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local Union 46 v. A & E Plumbing Ltd., 2001 CanLII 4259

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 2, 2001

G. McMenemy

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

Application adjourned sine die following representation vote.

Following a representation vote conducted by the Board on April 7, 2001, and with no parties raising any remaining issues requiring disposition, the Board adjourned the application sine die.

The application will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed within one year.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 491 v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, 2001 CanLII 6045

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 2, 2001

Request for reconsideration dismissed as untimely where employer filed 18 weeks late without explanation.

The moving party employer filed a request for reconsideration of a Board decision ordering it to pay $2,300 to the Director in trust.

The request was filed approximately 18 weeks after the decision, well beyond the 20-day time limit under Rule 96 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The employer provided no explanation for the delay and did not request an extension of time.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration as untimely.

Woodman v. G.R.M. Contracting Ltd., 2001 CanLII 6052

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 30, 2001

Motion to dismiss duty of fair representation complaint for lack of prima facie case denied; further submissions ordered on delay.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to take his overtime grievance to arbitration.

The intervenor employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for failing to establish a prima facie case and for undue delay.

The Board dismissed the motion regarding the prima facie case, finding the applicant's allegations, if true, could establish a violation.

On the issue of undue delay, the Board directed the parties to provide further written submissions regarding when the applicant learned his grievance had been withdrawn before deciding the matter.

Derick M. Gardner v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), CAW Local 222, 2001 CanLII 14384

Winston G. Mattis

7 cases2000–2005

Peter Straszynski

3 cases1998–2015

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 27, 2001

Board permits amendment of reprisal complaint to include discharge allegations and lists with related union complaint.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

At the hearing, the applicant sought to amend the application to include allegations regarding his subsequent discharge from employment and requested that the matter be consolidated with a related unfair labour practice complaint filed by a union.

The responding parties consented to the amendment without prejudice to their preliminary objections.

The Board granted the amendment, set a schedule for filing particulars, and directed that the matter be listed for a hearing together with the related complaint to determine procedural and preliminary issues.

Bancroft DeSouza v. Graphic Printing Roller Ltd., 2001 CanLII 7026

M. E. Geiger

17 cases1984–2001

Lister Tennant

4 cases2000–2001

J. David Watson

19 cases1986–2020

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 24, 2001

Grievance referral adjourned sine die pending provision of particulars and document production.

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

The responding party raised preliminary motions seeking particulars and requesting dismissal for abuse of process.

The Board directed the applicant to provide specific particulars of the grievance within twenty working days.

Given the need for particulars, pending document production from a related proceeding, and ongoing judicial proceedings, the Board adjourned the matter sine die for up to one year, setting out a schedule for the exchange of material facts should the matter be relisted.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. O & P Carpentry Limited, 2001 CanLII 4103

M. E. Geiger

17 cases1984–2001

Mauro Angeloni

2 cases1989–2001

Lister Tennant

4 cases2000–2001

J. David Watson

19 cases1986–2020

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 24, 2001

Board ordered responding party to produce payroll records to verify amounts owed under settlement agreement.

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

The parties had reached an agreement in principle to resolve the dispute over remittances and wages, but disagreed over the details.

The applicant sought an order directing the production of relevant records to verify the amounts owed.

The responding party did not oppose the request.

The Board directed the responding party to produce payroll and time records for the period ending November 1999.

The Board remained seized of the matter should the parties be unable to agree on the amounts or if the applicant sought production for a period beyond November 1999.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. O & P Carpentry Limited, 2001 CanLII 20329

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 23, 2001

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant following the filing of Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application following the filing of Minutes of Settlement between the parties.

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

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636 v. The Association for Persons with Physical Disabilities of Windsor and Essex County, 2001 CanLII 4929

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 23, 2001

Grievance referral adjourned sine die based on parties' Minutes of Settlement.

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

Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement filed by the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed was made within one year.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 586 v. AM – Tech Power Systems Ltd., 2001 CanLII 5921

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 23, 2001

Hearing adjourned due to the responding party's failure to appear.

The applicant requested an adjournment after the responding party failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the hearing to May 7, 2001.

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers, Local 128 v. Enviro Tank Inc., 2001 CanLII 15916

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 17, 2001

Grievance referral withdrawn at the request of the applicant union.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board against the responding party employer.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw the referral.

The Board granted the request and the referral was withdrawn.

Carpenters & Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Eastern Canform Joint Venture, 2001 CanLII 6113

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman