Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 25, 2000

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

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

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

Ontario Pipe Trades Council v. Darryl Gueguen c.o.b. as Countryside Plumbing & Heating, 2000 CanLII 8572

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 25, 2000

Appeal withdrawn at the request of the appellant.

The appellant requested to withdraw its appeal against the responding parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board acknowledged the request and the appeal was withdrawn.

Inco Limited v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 6500, 2000 CanLII 1514

Union's request for reconsideration to expand the temporal scope of a document production order dismissed.

The applicant union sought reconsideration of a previous Board decision that ordered the responding parties to produce business records for a specific time period.

The applicant argued that new evidence regarding the illness of the principal of Maran Ceramic Tiles Inc. justified expanding the temporal scope of the production order.

The Board found that the new evidence did not warrant a change to the production order, as the core issues revolved around the relationship between the responding parties after the incorporation of Mega City Tiling.

The Board concluded that the marginal utility of further disclosure was outweighed by the burden it would impose, and dismissed the request for reconsideration.

Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada, Local 31 v. 1249762 Ontario Inc. o/a Mega City Tiling, 2000 CanLII 6408

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 25, 2000

Grievance referral withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant requested to withdraw its referral of a grievance to the 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The Board granted the request and the referral was withdrawn.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. Belmont Drywall Concord Ltd., 2000 CanLII 7078

Stephen C. Raymond

6 cases1994–2000

Rick Honsberger

2 cases2000–2000

Lisa Triano

16 cases2000–2025

John MacLeod

2 cases2000–2000

Jim Simmons

4 cases2000–2001

Howard Goldblatt

In Private Practice102 cases1984–2025

Bruce Carpenter

4 cases2000–2001

Bridget Lynett

6 cases2000–2000

B. Casselman

2 cases2000–2000

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 22, 2000

Board retains jurisdiction to issue interim orders during hearings but denies union's request regarding firefighter scheduling.

The appellant union appealed an inspector's decision finding that the City had complied with an earlier order regarding firefighter response protocols.

The union sought an interim order requiring the City to schedule two full-time firefighters at all times or instruct them not to respond to calls until two firefighters were on the vehicle.

The City raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction to issue an interim order under s. 61(3.4) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act once a hearing had commenced.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding that the hearing and consultation processes are not mutually exclusive.

However, the Board dismissed the request for an interim order, concluding that the union failed to demonstrate compelling grounds to interfere with the inspector's decision or that the firefighters' health and safety would be jeopardized without the order, given the City's standard operating procedures for one-person crews.

Thorold Professional Fire Fighters’ Association v. Corporation of the City of Thorold, 2000 CanLII 13596

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

G. McMenemy

Grievance referral paused; applicant ordered to provide valid contact info for responding party or face dismissal.

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

The Board attempted to send the Confirmation of Filing and Notice of Hearing to the responding party by facsimile and courier using the contact information provided by the applicant, but both attempts failed.

The Board directed the applicant to provide a valid address or facsimile number for the responding party within 10 days, failing which the application would be dismissed.

Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Belmont Drywall Concord Ltd., 2000 CanLII 10345

Harry Freedman

Applicant directed to pay balance of Order to Pay or provide deduction breakdown to proceed with review.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act but paid less than the required amount to the Director in Trust, claiming the difference was for statutory deductions.

The Board directed the applicant to either pay the remaining balance or provide a breakdown of the statutory deductions by a specified date, failing which the application for review would be dismissed for non-compliance with section 68(7) of the Act.

CAPS (Complete Asset Protection Systems) v. Giovanni B. Carlos, 2000 CanLII 9371

Harry Freedman

Application for review of employment standards order dismissed for failure to file materials and make payment.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's order.

In a prior decision, the Board directed the applicant to file an application in the correct form, make the requisite payment to the Director, and request an extension of time with reasons by August 29, 2000.

The applicant failed to file the required material or make the payment by the deadline.

As a result, the Board dismissed the application for review.

1354493 Ontario Limited o/a The Pool Guy v. Barry McIsaac, 2000 CanLII 6349

Harry Freedman

Time to file application for review of Order to Pay extended due to lack of notice.

The applicant employer sought an extension of time to file an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed well past the 45-day limit.

The applicant argued it never received the Order to Pay, as it was signed for by a courier, and only learned of it when a collection agency contacted a customer.

The Ministry of Labour did not oppose the extension.

The Board found it appropriate to extend the time for filing to the date the application was actually filed.

Bruce Edmeades Sales Limited v. Lichti, 2000 CanLII 10277

Harry Freedman

Application for review of Order to Pay terminated following parties' 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 agreeing to the disbursement of funds held in trust by the Director.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the funds disbursed in accordance with the settlement and terminated the application.

Apkot Investments Ltd. o/a Casa Mia Restaurant v. Morris, 2000 CanLII 4723

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

Board amends bargaining unit description to ICI sector only and directs representation vote.

The applicant union requested that a previously cancelled representation vote be rescheduled and sought to amend the bargaining unit description to delete reference to non-ICI sectors of the construction industry, as another local had been certified for those sectors.

The Board granted the amendment, finding the appropriate bargaining unit to be all carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in the ICI sector, and directed that a representation vote be taken.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. 539243 Ontario Ltd., 2000 CanLII 7489

Harry Freedman

Application for review terminated following parties entering into binding Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant sought a review of a refusal to issue an order under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties entered into written Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer.

As the settlement disposed of all issues in dispute, the Board terminated the application in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

Bobbi Osbourne v. The Flower Nook, 2000 CanLII 1520

Harry Freedman

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

The applicant sought a review of a refusal to issue an order under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties entered into written Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer.

As the settlement disposed of all issues in dispute, the Board terminated the application in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

Beswick v. Inside Track Communications Inc., 2000 CanLII 2169

Emilio Binavince

7 cases1982–2005

Harry Freedman

Application for review of Order to Pay terminated following Minutes of Settlement between employer and employee.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer and the employee entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to disburse the 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.

Dr. D. E. Gibbs Dentistry v. Jakabhazy, 2000 CanLII 3682

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

Grievance referral withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant requested to withdraw its referral of a grievance to the Board.

The Board granted the request and the referral was withdrawn.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 894 v. Bennett & Wright Group Inc., 2000 CanLII 9781

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

Grievance referral withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

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

The Board granted the request and the referral was withdrawn.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 2486 v. Don Copeland c.o.b. as Copeland Subcontracting, 2000 CanLII 1753

Harry Freedman

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

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer and the employee entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to disburse the funds held in trust by the Director.

The Board ordered the funds disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $873.60 paid to the employee and $100.00 retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and terminated the application.

PPG Caskets Co. Ltd. v. Sullivan, 2000 CanLII 14690

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 18, 2000

Board amended previous decision to correct the rule referenced for filing a Certificate of Delivery.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

In a previous decision directing a representation vote, the Board noted an issue with the filing of the Certificate of Delivery and referenced Rule 26(e).

The Board issued this decision to correct that reference, noting that Rule 130 governs the filing of a Certificate of Delivery in construction industry certification applications.

The Board amended its previous decision to state that the timing of the filing and any consequences arising from it may be raised following the representation vote.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Miracle Construction Limited, 2000 CanLII 8609

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 15, 2000

Application for review paused; applicant directed to replace NSF cheque and request time extension.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

The cheque provided by the applicant to pay the required amount in trust was returned for insufficient funds.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that the application was not properly made under section 68(7) of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board directed the applicant to pay the required amount and file a request for an extension of time by October 2, 2000, failing which the application would be dismissed.

Units Inc. v. Singh, 2000 CanLII 10725

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy