Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 31, 2000

Time extended for filing application for review of Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue order.

The applicant sought to review an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay against his former employer.

The application was filed beyond the statutory time limit.

The applicant explained the delay was due to his attempts to contact the Officer, who was on vacation, to provide more information.

The Board found the applicant acted promptly in seeking an extension and that the application raised serious issues regarding the applicable limitation period.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for applying for review.

Scott Evans v. AFV Multimedia, 2000 CanLII 9423

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 31, 2000

Applications withdrawn at the request of the applicants.

The applicants requested to withdraw their applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the request and the applications were withdrawn.

The Ontario Pipe Trades Council of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada v. BE Mechanical, 2000 CanLII 9222

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

Grievance referral withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its referral of a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the request and the referral was withdrawn.

Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Bestway Acoustic Tile & Drywall Limited, 2000 CanLII 4085

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure majority support in representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and no statements of desire to make representations were filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on subsequent applications by the applicant for the same bargaining unit was imposed.

Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’ International Association of the United States and Canada, Local 124 v. Suntex Stucco Ltd., 2000 CanLII 9309

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

Board declined to issue default declaration of collective agreement binding due to insufficient factual allegations.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that the responding party was bound by a collective agreement without a hearing, as the responding party failed to file a Notice of Intent to Defend.

The Board declined to issue the declaration, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient factual allegations (such as a voluntary recognition agreement or Board certificate) to establish that the responding party was bound by the agreement.

The matter was directed to proceed to a hearing.

Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Aspen Drywall Inc., 2000 CanLII 9227

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

Applications adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and referred a grievance to the Board under section 133.

On the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the applications sine die, noting they would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed was made within one year.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. M.R.H. Interiors Ltd., 2000 CanLII 10715

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

Default judgment granted against employer for unpaid union contributions after failure to respond to grievance referral.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party failed to remit contributions for August 2000.

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 responding party bound by the Provincial Collective Agreement, declared a violation for failing to remit contributions, and ordered payment of $1,587.68 plus $664.00 in costs.

Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Blue Willow Contracting, 2000 CanLII 9484

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 25, 2000

Adjournment granted due to responding party counsel's pre-arranged vacation.

The responding party requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates because its counsel had a pre-arranged, non-refundable vacation.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, citing the need to resolve the underlying issue of its right to file grievances under the statutory freeze provisions.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting that counsel had moved promptly to seek consent and request the adjournment, and that the legal issue could likely be determined in a single day of hearing to be scheduled shortly after the originally requested dates.

Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada IWA-Canada v. Commonwealth Plywood Co. Limited, 2000 CanLII 7894

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 25, 2000

Reconsideration of settlement termination dismissed; unrepresented employee failed to allege fraud or coercion.

The employee applied for reconsideration of a Board decision that terminated an application for review following a settlement.

The employee argued she was unrepresented, under the mistaken impression the Board would provide counsel, and distracted by medical issues when she signed the settlement.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, noting it does not provide representation and that the employee failed to allege fraud or coercion, which are required under section 69.1(7)(b) of the Employment Standards Act to invalidate a settlement.

1236488 Ontario Inc. operating as Victoria Rest Home v. Sharon-Lynn Rivard, 2000 CanLII 7124

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 24, 2000

G. McMenemy

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

Application concerning a work assignment withdrawn on consent without conditions.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application concerning a work assignment under section 99(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding parties consented to the withdrawal.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application without imposing any conditions.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 v. State Group Company, 2000 CanLII 9120

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 24, 2000

Board declined to determine grievance merits due to applicant filing before delivering to responding party.

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

The applicant filed the application with the Board one day before delivering it to the responding party, contrary to Rule 155 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, which requires delivery before or at the same time as filing.

Although the responding party failed to file a timely response, the Board declined to determine the merits of the application at this stage due to the applicant's non-compliance.

The matter was directed to proceed to the scheduled hearing, where the applicant would be required to seek relief against the strict application of the Rules under Rule 44.

Universal Workers’ Union, L.I.U.N.A., Local 183 v. 675602 Ontario Ltd., 2000 CanLII 9765

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 20, 2000

Board amended bargaining unit and directed ballot count pursuant to parties' minutes of settlement.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to amend the bargaining unit description, count the non-segregated ballots from the representation vote, and withdraw the section 96 application.

The Board issued a decision amending the bargaining unit description, directing the counting of the ballots, and withdrawing the section 96 application in accordance with the settlement.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Alcona Aluminum Inc., 2000 CanLII 3437

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 19, 2000

Representation vote directed for construction industry certification limited to the geographic area where employees were working.

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 response.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support to direct a representation vote.

The Board rejected the applicant's proposed bargaining unit encompassing multiple geographic areas, limiting it to Board Area 6, as that was the only area where employees were working on the application date.

A representation vote was directed.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local 785 v. Loucon Developments General Contractors Inc., 2000 CanLII 9549

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 19, 2000

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

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

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support and defined the appropriate bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The responding party's request to seal the ballot box under section 8.1 of the Act was denied, as the Board determined that section 8.1 does not apply to construction industry certification applications.

Drywall, Acoustic, Lathing and Insulation Local 675 of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Dricon Drywall Corporation, 2000 CanLII 7321

Michael Gottheil

24 cases1986–2003

L. A. Richmond

78 cases1983–2001

J. Haggis

5 cases1993–2001

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 19, 2000

Application dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case regarding refusal to reimburse union organizing costs.

The applicants alleged that the responding parties violated various sections of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to reimburse a local union for legal costs incurred during an organizing drive.

The responding parties brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the duty of fair representation under sections 74 and 167(1) did not apply to internal union affairs or the administration of an organizing trust fund.

The Board also found no basis for the allegations of intimidation, coercion, or breach of a prior settlement agreement.

The motion was granted and the application was dismissed.

International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Local 6 v. Ontario Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen Organizing Trust Fund, 2000 CanLII 2638

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 16, 2000

Responding party ordered to produce documents and subcontractor lists relating to carpentry work at construction projects.

The applicant union sought a formal order requiring the responding party to produce documents relating to two construction projects.

The responding party claimed it had no construction employees, implying the work was performed by subcontractors.

The Board directed the responding party to forthwith produce all documents and records relating to carpentry work at the projects, including contract documents and a list of subcontractors.

Carpenters & Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. General Commercial Construction Management Inc., 2000 CanLII 8532

J. Knight

Harry Freedman

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 16, 2000

Construction grievance allowed in default after responding party failed to file a response.

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

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 declared that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement, found a violation, issued a cease and desist order, and directed the payment of the applicant's filing fee.

Lake Ontario District Council, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Canbuild Management Services Limited, 2000 CanLII 1486

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 12, 2000

Grievance referral adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.

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

On the agreement of 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.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Perfection Rug Co. Ltd., 2000 CanLII 10310

Harry Freedman