Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 26, 2001

Application for review dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as no order to pay was issued.

The applicant filed an application for review under the Employment Standards Act, claiming the Employment Standards Officer did not obtain all the money due to her.

The employer subsequently agreed to pay the additional $100.00 claimed, and the applicant received the payment.

The Board dismissed the application for review, finding it had no jurisdiction because no order to pay was ever issued, there was no refusal to issue an order, and the applicant had already obtained the amount claimed.

Miriam Finbow v. Bradik Telemarketing Services Inc., 2001 CanLII 10780

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 26, 2001

Time to file application for review extended where one-day delay caused by filing with wrong office.

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

The application was filed one day late because it was mistakenly sent to the Ministry of Labour instead of the Board.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for applying for review, noting the applicant's clear intention to seek a review within the stipulated time and the minimal delay.

Daniel Chadee v. Sintra Bagaloo o/a Sharpie Cable Systems, 2001 CanLII 19920

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, to be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made within one year.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 247 v. E.S. Fox Limited, 2001 CanLII 11556

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 26, 2001

Board amends proposed project agreement to prevent disproportionate wage reduction for challenging union's members.

The applicant union challenged a proposed project agreement under section 163.1(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing it would result in a disproportionate reduction in total wages and benefits for its members compared to other approving unions.

The Board found that the change in the standard work week from 36 to 40 hours, combined with a 5% base wage reduction, disproportionately affected the applicant's members.

The Board amended the proposed project agreement to increase the base hourly wage rate for the applicant's members to 100.22% of their prevailing provincial agreement rate, ensuring their proportional wage reduction matched the largest reduction of an approving union, and declared the amended agreement in force.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 530 v. Sarnia Construction Association, 2001 CanLII 9697

Harry Freedman

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

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

The employer and the employee subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order directing the Ministry of Labour to disburse the funds held in trust in accordance with the settlement, and terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Employment Standards Act.

Link Logistics Inc. v. Luc Parent, 2001 CanLII 7836

Harry Freedman

Application for review terminated after parties entered into binding Minutes of Settlement.

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

Frances Tanner v. Canadian National Institute for the Blind, 2001 CanLII 7162

Harry Freedman

Time to apply for review of Order to Pay extended due to short delay and prompt payment.

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

The application was filed a few days after the 45-day statutory deadline.

The applicant requested an extension of time, explaining that the delay was due to counsel being out of the office.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the extension under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act, noting the delay was extremely short, the applicant had paid the required amount to the Director well before the deadline, and substantial grounds for review were provided.

499210 Ontario Inc. o/a Rider Tool and Manufacturing Co. v. Brogan, 2001 CanLII 17855

Harry Freedman

Employment standards review application terminated following parties' settlement and agreement on trust fund disbursement.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay.

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, subject to any objection by the Ministry of Labour, and terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Employment Standards Act.

T.B.T. Windows and Doors Extrusion Inc. v. Hanna, 2001 CanLII 6825

Harry Freedman

Application for review dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as no order to pay was issued.

The applicant filed an Application for Review under the Employment Standards Act, seeking an order confirming that the respondent was an independent contractor and not an employee.

The applicant acknowledged that the Employment Standards Officer did not issue an order to pay, but rather the applicant paid the respondent directly after feeling compelled by the Officer.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction to review the matter because no order to pay had been issued under the Act.

Found Money Inc. v. Ruparel, 2001 CanLII 6023

Harry Freedman

Union certification application dismissed because membership evidence was in the name of a different union.

The applicant union filed an application for certification in the construction industry.

The membership evidence submitted by the applicant was in the name of a different union, the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 607, with no indication of any connection to the applicant.

The Board held that because there was no similarity between the applicant's name and the name on the membership evidence, the applicant failed to establish that 40 per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit appeared to be members of the applicant.

The application was dismissed.

Construction and Allied Workers Local Union 607 v. Hugh Munro Construction Ltd., 2001 CanLII 13407

Harry Freedman

Representation vote ordered in construction industry certification application after employer failed to respond.

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 within the stipulated time.

Based on the application and membership evidence, the Board found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

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

Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Bradmar Contracting Inc. c.o.b. as Metro Lawn Sprinklers, 2001 CanLII 14312

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

Board granted agreed-upon extension of time for responding parties to file their reply.

The applicant applied under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the responding parties.

The parties agreed to extend the time for the responding parties to file their reply.

The Board granted the extension, ordering the reply to be filed by August 20, 2001, or at least seven days before the hearing date.

The Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie v. Labourers' International Union of North America, 2001 CanLII 18522

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

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.

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 46 v. Alexander Decor, 2001 CanLII 4245

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

Extension of time to file response granted due to counsel vacation schedules.

The responding party union requested an extension of time to file its response to a work assignment application under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, citing vacation schedules.

The Board granted the extension to August 20, 2001, noting that a consultation had not yet been scheduled.

Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local 504 v. Douro Roofing & Sheet Metal Contractors Inc., 2001 CanLII 7880

Harry Freedman

Certification application dismissed because membership evidence was in the name of a different union.

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

The Board found that the membership evidence submitted by the applicant was in the name of a different union, the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 607, with no evidence connecting the two entities.

As the applicant failed to establish that 40 per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit appeared to be members of the applicant, the application was dismissed.

Construction and Allied Workers Local Union 607 v. L. T. L. Contracting Ltd., 2001 CanLII 18843

Harry Freedman

Application for review of Employment Standards Officer's decision dismissed due to unexplained late filing.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay.

The application was filed two months after the 45-day statutory deadline.

The applicant's paralegal agent requested an extension of time, explaining they had mistakenly written to the Officer instead of the Board.

The Board declined to extend the time, noting the lack of a justifiable explanation for the delay and the failure to provide any factual grounds to support the assertion that the Officer's decision was erroneous.

The application for review was dismissed.

Rajeev K. Dhirar v. APA Precision Machine & Tools Ltd., 2001 CanLII 2685

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 23, 2001

Board amends applicant union's name to correct a good faith mistake under section 112.

The applicant union requested to amend its name in the title of proceedings, having mistakenly included 'District Council 46' in the original application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under section 112 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, finding the mistake was made in good faith, and amended the applicant's name to 'International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1891'.

International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1891 v. T & F Stucco Systems Inc., 2001 CanLII 8878

J. G. Knight

Harry Freedman

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 23, 2001

Trade union certified as bargaining agent following successful representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than 50% of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the parties agreed on the correct name of the responding party.

The Board ordered the issuance of two certificates pursuant to section 160(1) of the Act: one for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, and another for all other sectors in the specified geographic areas.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 46 v. C.M.S. Commercial Mechanical Services Ltd., 2001 CanLII 19893

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Michael S. Ruddy

19 cases1983–2001

Jacques A. Emond

11 cases1980–2005

Harry Freedman

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 20, 2001

Evidentiary objection sustained; documents excluded for failure to comply with prior production order.

During the continuation of a hearing, the applicants sought to introduce Land Titles Office abstracts into evidence to challenge the testimony of witnesses regarding property ownership.

The responding parties objected on the basis that the documents had not been produced prior to the hearing as required by a previous Board order.

The Board sustained the objection, finding that the applicants failed to comply with the production order and provided no grounds for granting leave to introduce the documents at this stage.

A subsequent request to reconsider the ruling was also dismissed.

Labourers' International Union of North America, Ontario Provincial District Council v. William S. Burnside (Canada) Limited, 2001 CanLII 20178

Harry Freedman