Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 6, 2000

Application for certification dismissed after union failed to win majority in representation vote.

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

Following a representation vote, the parties resolved outstanding issues with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer, and the remaining sealed ballots were counted.

As not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the parties agreed the application should be dismissed.

The Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 527 v. Dordan Mechanical Contractors Ltd., 2000 CanLII 9400

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 9, 1999

Requests for reconsideration dismissed; statutory time limits for challenging project agreements are mandatory and cannot be waived.

The applicant unions sought reconsideration of a Board decision which found their challenge to a project agreement to be untimely.

The unions argued that the Board erred in calculating the time limits, failed to apply section 123 of the Act to cure technical defects in notice, and should have accepted oral notice given to the Deputy Registrar.

The Board dismissed the requests for reconsideration, holding that the time limits in section 163.1(9) are mandatory, section 123 does not permit the Board to relieve against statutory timeliness requirements, and oral notice via telephone message is insufficient.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 663 v. The Sarnia Construction Association, 1999 CanLII 20178

Board directed disputed construction work be assigned to a composite crew of carpenters and labourers.

The Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1089 and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1256 disputed the assignment of work involving the installation of a new base and foundation walls at existing storage tanks at an oil refinery.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held a consultation to resolve the jurisdictional dispute.

The Board directed that the disputed work be assigned to a composite crew comprising equal numbers of members from both unions.

Following this decision, the Labourers' union withdrew its related grievance referral.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1089 v. Doug Chalmers Construction Limited, 1999 CanLII 20191

Karima Chatur

53 cases1999–2001

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 28, 1999

Order to pay rescinded on consent after Ministry confirmed employee received owed wages.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The employee did not appear at the hearing.

The Ministry of Labour consented to the application after reviewing the applicant's payroll records and confirming the employee had been paid the wages owed.

The Board rescinded the Order to Pay and ordered the Director to remit the funds held in trust, including administration costs, to the applicant.

Continental Poultry Equipment Limited v. George Karakitsos and Ministry of Labour, 1999 CanLII 19506

J. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 13, 1999

Board adjourns default related employer application pending verification that notices to employees were posted.

The applicant union filed an application for a related employer and sale of business declaration, and referred a grievance to arbitration.

The responding employers failed to file any response.

The Board noted its authority under the Rules of Procedure to deem the facts accepted and proceed without a hearing.

However, because the applicant had not verified that the required notices to affected employees had been posted by the responding parties, the Board adjourned the matter.

The applicant was directed to provide information regarding the employees or verify the posting 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. Multi Wall & Ceiling Systems Limited and 714232 Ontario Ltd. o/a Pro Drywall, 1999 CanLII 19492

J. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 13, 1999

Board adjourns default related employer application pending applicant's verification of notice to employees.

The applicant union filed an application for a related employer and sale of business declaration, and referred a grievance to arbitration.

The responding parties failed to file any response or notice of intent to participate.

The Board noted its rules permit it to deem the facts in the application as true and proceed without a hearing in default situations.

However, because the applicant had not verified that the required notice to employees had been posted by the responding parties, the Board adjourned the matter.

The applicant was directed to confirm whether any employees were affected or if the notice was posted, failing which the application would be dismissed.

Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Multi Wall & Ceiling Systems Limited, 1999 CanLII 20134

Rick Currie

7 cases1995–2001

Res Bradley

M. Patrick Moran

36 cases1982–2011

Mark Wright

49 cases1993–2022

Laurence C. Arnold

24 cases1981–2001

J. Wilson

22 cases1980–2024

Julie Hyatt

J. Raso

19 cases1992–2001

John Nielsen

John Bruce

7 cases1994–2017

John Brining

Jack Strickland

George Leppanen

Gary Caroline

26 cases1988–2012

David Clark

3 cases1991–2017

Aaron Murphy

3 cases1998–2001

J. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 12, 1999

Motion to disqualify a labour board member for reasonable apprehension of bias dismissed.

During a jurisdictional dispute consultation, the Vice-Chair sought submissions on whether a Board Member should continue on the panel given his past employment as a senior official in Ontario Hydro's labour relations area.

One of the responding unions objected, arguing a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the Board Member had no actual involvement in the specific 1979 dispute being relied upon, and his general background and experience in construction labour relations at Ontario Hydro did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 721 v. The Electrical Power Systems Construction Association, 1999 CanLII 19503

Paul Falzone

9 cases1982–1999

John Moszynski

71 cases1986–2017

Erin R. Kuzz

17 cases1998–2023

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 5, 1999

Application alleging unlawful strike dismissed as physical obstruction of work did not constitute a strike.

The applicant union alleged that the responding union and its business manager engaged in and threatened an unlawful strike to force the general contractor to change a work assignment for laying pipe on a construction project.

The business manager had physically obstructed the applicant's members from working by standing in the trench.

The Board found that the physical obstruction did not constitute a strike by the employees, nor did the business manager's actions or statements amount to a threat of an unlawful strike.

The general contractor changed the work assignment based on a prior understanding, not due to any threat.

The application concerning the unlawful strike was dismissed.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1089 v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 663, 1999 CanLII 19497

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 30, 1999

Challenge to project agreement dismissed as untimely; statutory 10-day limit means calendar days.

The applicants challenged a proposed project agreement under section 163.1(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding parties argued the challenge was untimely because it was filed more than 10 calendar days after the Board received notice of the agreement's approval.

The applicants contended that 'days' meant working days, relying on advice from the Board's Deputy Registrar.

The Board held that 'days' in section 163.1(9) means calendar days, consistent with statutory interpretation principles and the Act's scheme.

The Board further held it lacked jurisdiction under section 123 to relieve against the statutory time limit, and the doctrine of reasonable expectation did not apply.

The application was dismissed as untimely, and the project agreement came into force.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 663 v. The Sarnia Construction Association, 1999 CanLII 19502

R. R. Montague

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

J. A. Rundle

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 10, 1999

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed as applicant was not an employee in the bargaining unit.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to pursue a grievance regarding his employment status.

The union and employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the applicant was a temporary employee excluded from the bargaining unit and that the application was delayed.

The Board dismissed the timeliness objection but dismissed the application on the basis that it did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union and employer had consistently treated the applicant as a temporary employee outside the bargaining unit, and therefore the union owed him no duty of representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

Herbert Pickett v. Retail Wholesale Canada, Canadian Service Sector Division, United Steelworkers of America, Local 414, 1999 CanLII 19495

Carol Quirt

Bill Bishop

Alan Whyte

9 cases1992–2013

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 8, 1999

Previously unrepresented employees added to a bargaining unit following restructuring have the right to strike.

The applicant employer sought a determination under section 27 of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 as to whether previously unrepresented employees, who were included in a bargaining unit following restructuring, had the right to strike during bargaining for a first collective agreement.

The employer argued that their terms and conditions of employment, which did not include the right to strike, continued under section 24(4).

The Board held that once included in the bargaining unit, the employees were represented by the union and governed by the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Consequently, they possessed the right to participate in a lawful strike called by the union.

The Corporation of the City of Kingston v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 109, 1999 CanLII 19511

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 15, 1999

Ward clerks placed in service workers bargaining unit rather than clerical unit following hospital restructuring.

The applicant hospitals and responding unions agreed on the descriptions of the service workers and office and clerical bargaining units following restructuring, but disputed the placement of the ward clerk positions.

The applicant and OPSEU argued the ward clerks should be in the service unit due to their close interaction with patient care teams, while CUPE argued they belonged in the office and clerical unit.

The Board determined that the ward clerks should be placed in the service unit, finding that their close relationship with the patient care team and the potential for operational impediments if placed in the clerical unit militated in favour of the applicant's position.

A representation vote was ordered.

Penetanguishene General Hospital Inc. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, 1999 CanLII 20147

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 14, 1999

Operation of inspector's order requiring mechanical restraint training suspended pending appeal.

The applicant employer appealed an inspector's order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act requiring it to provide training on mechanical restraints to correctional officers.

The employer requested a suspension of the order pending the appeal.

The Board applied the test for suspending an inspector's order, finding that worker safety would not be endangered, the employer would suffer significant prejudice by having to implement a potentially unnecessary training program, and the employer had a strong prima facie case for a successful appeal.

The request to suspend the operation of the order was granted.

Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services (Whitby Jail) v. Gordon et al., 1999 CanLII 20149

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 7, 1999

Reprisal complaint dismissed; no prima facie case that termination was for exercising OHSA rights.

The applicant, a 16-year-old employee, was assaulted by a customer in the employer's parking lot.

After the applicant swore at the customer and sought management assistance, the employer terminated his employment.

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

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that even if all allegations were true, the applicant had not established a prima facie case that his termination was a reprisal for exercising rights under the Act.

The Board noted it lacked jurisdiction to remedy general unfair treatment or grant the requested relief, which included directing the employer to initiate criminal prosecution.

Leif Stawnyczy v. Wal-Mart Canada Inc., 1999 CanLII 19985

Sean Fitzpatrick

11 cases1994–2021

Nick Milanovic

5 cases1999–2001

M. Qucaley

2 cases1999–1999

K. W. Kort

12 cases1981–1999

David Wright

188 cases1989–2025

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 4, 1999

Board maintains separate service and clerical bargaining units following hospital restructuring to minimize labour relations disruption.

Following a hospital restructuring, the successor employer and one union sought a single comprehensive bargaining unit for all service and office/clerical employees.

Two other unions argued for maintaining separate bargaining units for service employees and office/clerical employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that two separate bargaining units were appropriate.

The Board held that while a single unit might be appropriate, the existing separate units had been effective and there was no evidence of labour relations difficulties.

Maintaining the separate units would cause the least disruption to the existing pattern of collective bargaining and was consistent with the purposes of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act.

Penetanguishene General Hospital Inc. et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees et al., 1999 CanLII 19989

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 28, 1999

Equipment supplier has standing as an "aggrieved employer" to appeal an OHSA inspector's order.

The applicant, a supplier of toilet and clean up facilities, sought to appeal an inspector's order issued against a constructor under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The order found that the rented facilities did not meet regulatory requirements.

The Ministry of Labour argued the applicant lacked standing under section 61(1) of the Act because it was not the entity named in the order.

The Board held that the applicant met the broad definition of "employer" under the Act and could reasonably consider itself "aggrieved" by the order due to its adverse economic impact.

The preliminary motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of standing was dismissed.

K. Winter Sanitation Inc. v. Ministry of Labour, 1999 CanLII 20005

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 26, 1999

Time to file application for review of Order to Pay extended due to ongoing settlement discussions.

The applicant employer sought to review an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay but filed its application after the 45-day statutory deadline.

The applicant requested an extension of time, citing ongoing settlement discussions, the unavailability of the employee's agent, concurrent collective bargaining negotiations, and the illness of its representative.

The employee objected to the extension.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the parties had been engaged in settlement attempts and that extending the time would not prejudice the employee.

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

Circuit World Corporation v. Frank Csikos and Ministry of Labour, 1999 CanLII 19964

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

C. M. Mitchell

38 cases1980–1999

Harry Freedman

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 23, 1999

Board grants interim order enforcing parent union's supervision over local union pending unfair labour practice hearing.

The parent union (IBEW) assumed supervision and control over its local union (Local 1788) after the local's members voted to be represented by a different union and the local's executive began winding down its affairs and trust funds.

The local union filed an unfair labour practice complaint.

The IBEW moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case, and alternatively sought an interim order enforcing its supervision.

The Board dismissed the motion to dismiss, finding the complaint raised significant labour relations issues.

However, the Board granted the IBEW's request for an interim order, directing the local union to transfer control of its assets to the IBEW's appointed supervisor pending a final determination on whether the IBEW had just cause to assume supervision.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1788 v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 1999 CanLII 20009

Gil Scott

4 cases1993–1999

G. F. Luborsky

10 cases1983–1999

David McKee

85 cases1980–2000

C. M. Mitchell

38 cases1980–1999

B. Suppa

5 cases1988–1999

B. E. Forrester

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 15, 1999

Board assigns scaffolding tending work to Labourers based on established area practice.

The applicant Carpenters union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of tending work for scaffolding erection at a restoration project.

The employer, Aluma, had assigned the work of providing scaffolding materials to its carpenter employees to an apprentice carpenter.

The Labourers union claimed the work.

The Board considered area practice, employer preference, and other factors.

Finding that the area practice in Board Area 21 strongly favoured assigning tending work to labourers, the Board declared that the tending work (excluding unloading and initial placement) should have been assigned to a member of the Labourers.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 446 v. Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 1036, 1999 CanLII 19996

Stephen Coleman

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

R. Pearn

In Private Practice64 cases1985–2025

Richard J. Charney

L. P. Kavanaugh, Q. C.

3 cases1998–2000

J. Timothy Lawson

3 cases1995–1999

J. Boyle

4 cases1983–1999

Harry Freedman