Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 9, 2000

Application for review of Order to Pay terminated following settlement agreement between director and employees.

The applicant directors sought a review of Orders to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving the dispute regarding one of the directors, who agreed to pay $2,500 to be distributed among the employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the disbursement of the settlement funds and terminated the application in accordance with the settlement and section 69.1(5) of the Employment Standards Act.

Ellen Helden and Louis Desmarais Directors of Future Health Inc. v. Bryan Cleveland et al., 2000 CanLII 5323

Board directs applicant to follow rules to add related employer to grievance referral.

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

A third party, Megatech Electrical Limited, advised the Board that the contact information provided for the respondent belonged to it.

The applicant asserted that the two companies were related employers.

The Board noted that it had received nothing from the named respondent and that if the applicant wished to establish a related employer relationship, it must do so in accordance with the Board's Rules and name the third party as a party to the proceeding.

The matter was permitted to continue.

Construction Workers Local 52 affiliated with the Christian Labour Association of Canada v. MegaTech Contracting International Ltd., 2000 CanLII 12106

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 9, 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Grievance referral withdrawn at the request of the applicant.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The Board granted the request and the referral was withdrawn.

Millwright Regional Council of Ontario v. Bramkal Contractors Inc., 2000 CanLII 3573

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

Board clarifies that grievance referral currently affects only the named responding party.

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

The Board received a facsimile from Megatech Electrical Ltd. stating that it does not have a collective agreement with the applicant and that the grievance was sent to them in error.

The Board determined that the proceeding currently affects only the named responding party, MegaTech Contracting International Ltd., and noted that the applicant may need to prove proper notice or add Megatech Electrical Ltd. as a party if it seeks to affect them.

Construction Workers Local 52 affiliated with the Christian Labour Association of Canada v. MegaTech Contracting International Ltd., 2000 CanLII 10298

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 Board ordered the funds disbursed in accordance with the settlement and terminated the application.

Edwards Ford Sales (Kingston) Ltd. v. Bob Gibson and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 1207

Harry Freedman

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

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

The parties entered into 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.

Pierre Chicoine v. Corps des Commissionnaires and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 8776

Harry Freedman

Application for review terminated after parties entered 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 subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer.

Pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act, the Board terminated the application.

Montpetit v. N.A.B.E.T. 700/C.E.P., 2000 CanLII 7529

Harry Freedman

Application for review terminated following written settlement between the parties.

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

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

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

Dunnill v. Williams Operating Corporation, 2000 CanLII 9141

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

Request for extension of time and adjournment dismissed as late retention of counsel is not a valid excuse.

The responding parties requested an extension of time to file a statement of defence and an adjournment of the hearing, arguing they had been unrepresented and needed time to prepare.

The Board dismissed the request, noting the responding parties had ample time to retain counsel since the application was filed in June and the first hearing was in July.

The Board held that retaining counsel at the last moment is not a valid basis for granting an extension or adjournment.

The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada v. Newmarch Inc., 2000 CanLII 3273

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 3, 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 agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within one year.

Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. J.A. MacDonald (London) Limited, 2000 CanLII 9464

J. A. Rundle

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 2, 2000

D. A. Patterson

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

Hearing adjourned on consent to allow for document production and review.

The applicant union filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 alleging violations by the responding party employer.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties agreed to adjourn the matter to allow for the production and review of requested documents.

The Board granted the adjournment on consent and referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule new hearing dates.

United Steelworkers of America, Local 5296 v. York Condominium Corporation #42, 2000 CanLII 6405

L. Eisenberg

29 cases2000–2001

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 1, 2000

Employer's application to review Order to Pay dismissed; alleged theft does not justify withholding wages.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay directing him to pay unpaid vacation pay and statutory administration costs to a former employee.

The employer failed to attend the hearing, citing an unspecified family emergency, but the Board proceeded after the employee and the Ministry of Labour objected to an adjournment.

The employer had withheld the vacation pay, alleging the employee stole materials from job sites.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that under section 8 of the Employment Standards Act and section 14 of the General Regulation, an employer cannot set off alleged damages against wages without a court order, statutory provision, or written authorization, none of which existed here.

Phil Gilmore operating as Contex Roofing Company v. Frank Arruda, 2000 CanLII 4119

Pamela Yudcovitch

13 cases1988–2016

Lister Tennant

4 cases2000–2001

Joseph Mariani

1 case2000–2000

James Robbins

13 cases1998–2001

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 31, 2000

Broad production order denied as an impermissible fishing expedition; production limited to projects named in grievance.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board and sought a broad production order for documents relating to all projects undertaken by the responding party since the commencement of the collective agreement.

The responding party objected, arguing production should be limited to the three projects specifically named in the grievance.

The Board denied the broad production request, characterizing it as an impermissible fishing expedition to discover unknown violations.

The Board ordered production limited to the three projects identified in the grievance, noting that broader production might be warranted if a pattern of violations or subterfuge were later established.

Carpenters & Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. General Commercial Construction Management Inc., 2000 CanLII 7687

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 28, 2000

Grievance referral adjourned sine die following parties' execution of Minutes of Settlement.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board adjourned the matter sine die, remaining seized in the event of any difficulty implementing the settlement.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1059 v. Traugott Construction (Kitchener) Limited, 2000 CanLII 9156

M. I. Rotman

6 cases1994–2001

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 20, 2000

Employer ordered to pay outstanding union remittances, damages, and fees following default grievance hearing.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party failed to make required remittances under the Provincial Collective Agreement.

The responding party did not appear at the hearing.

The Board found the responding party bound by the agreement and in default of its remittance obligations for January, February, and March 2000.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $7,854.50 in outstanding remittances, liquidated damages, and interest, plus $749.00 for the applicant's Board filing fees.

The United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 46 v. Atlantic HVAC Systems Ltd., 2000 CanLII 12877

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 17, 2000

Application adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.

The applicant filed an application against the responding party union.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die, to be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made within one year.

Mona Robbins v. Service Employees International Union, 2000 CanLII 3219

Mike Wasylyk

1 case2000–2000

Mark Alchuk

9 cases1989–2008

Laura Williams

3 cases1999–2001

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 4, 2000

Parties agreed to have the presiding Vice-Chair mediate ongoing occupational health and safety proceedings.

During a lengthy hearing involving three related proceedings under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the parties agreed to have the presiding Vice-Chair act as a mediator.

The mediation was agreed to on the condition that all discussions would be privileged and that the Vice-Chair would not be disqualified from continuing to hear and decide the matters if a settlement was not reached.

The Board scheduled a mediation session and set further hearing dates in the event the matters did not settle.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ministry of the Solicitor General & Correctional Services, 2000 CanLII 9286

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 9, 2000

Board fixed hearing dates for spring 2001 due to witness unavailability over the winter.

During a hearing, the applicants requested an adjournment to prepare for cross-examination, which was granted.

The parties were unable to agree on dates for the continuation of the hearing.

The responding parties' next witness was unavailable during the winter months.

The Board determined there was no utility in scheduling three days in January and instead fixed seven days of hearing for March and April 2001.

International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen v. Gay Construction Limited, 2000 CanLII 10157

Robert A. J. Landry

1 case2000–2000

Michael A. Wills

15 cases2000–2025

Frank Luce

22 cases1980–2001

Charles R. Robertson

11 cases1984–2000

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 9, 2000

Board schedules dates for argument on bargaining unit issue in certification and unfair labour practice applications.

In the context of a certification application and an unfair labour practice application, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural decision regarding the scheduling of arguments on the appropriate bargaining unit.

After seven days of hearings and the conclusion of evidence on the bargaining unit issue, the Board, on agreement of the parties, scheduled dates in November 2000 to hear arguments and set deadlines for the delivery of written outlines and a joint book of authorities.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Magna Seating Systems Inc., 2000 CanLII 7887

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell