John Morgan Lewis

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 3, 2000

Board ordered production of arguably relevant payroll and alarm records in an employment standards review.

In an application to review an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act, the responding party requested the production of payroll and vigialarm records from the applicant and a related company.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the requested documents to be arguably relevant but noted the request was too broad.

The Board directed the production of the records specifically relating to the responding parties for their respective periods of employment.

Extasie Investments Ltd. v. Haskim, 2000 CanLII 10287

John Morgan Lewis

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 3, 2000

Employer ordered to produce employee's payroll and alarm records prior to Employment Standards Act hearing.

The responding party employee requested the production of payroll and vigialarm records from the applicant employer and SLK Marketing Limited in advance of a hearing to review an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board found the documents arguably relevant but the request too broad.

The Board directed the production of the requested records specifically relating to the responding party for the relevant period of her employment.

Extasie Investments Ltd. v. Margaret L. Wilson and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 7598

John Morgan Lewis

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 3, 2000

Time extended for filing application to review Order to Pay due to short delay and lack of prejudice.

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

The application was filed one day late and initially on the wrong form.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for filing, noting the short delay, lack of prejudice, and the applicant's prompt correction of the filing defect.

The Board also noted the applicant had inadvertently paid the Ministry of Labour twice and directed it to seek reimbursement from the Ministry.

658778 Ontario Limited v. Angie Mills and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 9723

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

Masonry Industry Employers’ Council of Ontario v. Brick Employee Bargaining Agency, Local 1, 2000 CanLII 8448

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

Board directed employers to post notice of proposed single-employer consent declaration for affected employees.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 against the responding employers.

Prior to a hearing, the parties entered into a memorandum of agreement requesting a consent order declaring the responding employers to be a single employer under section 1(4) of the Act and bound to the applicable collective agreement.

The Board noted that while the application was filed under section 96, the requested remedy under section 1(4) requires notice to affected employees.

The Board directed the responding employers to post a copy of the decision to provide notice to their employees, allowing them 10 days to file any written objections before the Board would issue the requested declarations.

Ontario Pipe Trades Council v. Gus Mechanical Engineering Inc., 2000 CanLII 12540

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Local 2 v. Gary Eden operating as Division 4 Contractors, 2000 CanLII 1366

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

Representation vote cancelled on agreement of the parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision cancelling a representation vote previously scheduled for April 4, 2000.

The cancellation was ordered on the agreement of the parties.

The responding party was directed to post the decision to bring it to the attention of its employees.

Ontario Pipe Trades Council v. Rodco Mechanical Inc., 2000 CanLII 12072

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers, Local 2 v. Eric Murray c.o.b. as B.M.R. Construction Services, 2000 CanLII 4639

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

Application adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183 v. Sanan Construction, 2000 CanLII 9276

John Morgan Lewis

Employer's request to suspend health and safety orders regarding protective footwear dismissed as moot following compliance.

The applicant employer sought to suspend two health and safety orders requiring employees to wear appropriate protective footwear.

The Ministry of Labour and the union responded that the employees had already purchased and were wearing the required footwear, and the employer had reimbursed them.

The Board found that because the employer had fully complied with the orders and faced no ongoing prejudice or additional costs, the suspension request was moot.

The application for suspension was dismissed, and the underlying appeal was referred to mediation.

The Queen in Right of Ontario (The Liquor Control Board of Ontario) v. The Ontario Liquor Board’s Employees’ Union and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 13486

John Morgan Lewis

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Kerry Horslen v. Mother Jackson’s Open Kitchens and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 2812

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

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

The applicant union filed an application 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 statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on subsequent certification applications by the applicant was imposed.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1081 v. Folmur Construction Limited, 2000 CanLII 9791

John Morgan Lewis

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant, OPSEU, Local 517, sought to withdraw its application against the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre and the Ministry of Labour.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

OPSEU, Local 517 v. Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre, 2000 CanLII 4601

John Morgan Lewis

Proceeding terminated following resolution between the parties.

The applicant union filed a matter against the responding party employer.

The parties advised the Ontario Labour Relations Board that the matter had been resolved and requested the cancellation of the scheduled hearing.

The Board terminated the proceeding.

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Thunder Bay Lodge No. 1120 v. Dominion Motors (Thunder Bay-1984) Limited, 2000 CanLII 9271

John Morgan Lewis

Application terminated due to applicant's failure to provide contact information as directed.

The applicant failed to comply with a prior Board direction to provide a telephone number to the assigned Labour Relations Officer by a specified date.

As a result of this non-compliance, the Board terminated the application.

Dwight Jackson v. Checkmark Construction and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 11758

John Morgan Lewis

Board ordered responding parties to produce requested documents or provide reasons for non-production.

The applicant requested an order directing document production from the responding parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding parties to produce the requested documents by April 5, 2000, or to advise the Board and the applicant of the reasons for not producing any documents in their possession.

Any remaining disputes regarding production were to be addressed at the upcoming hearing.

Ontario Pipe Trades Council v. Patrick L. Roberts Limited, 2000 CanLII 13227

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

Representation vote directed in construction industry certification application; ballots segregated due to employer identity dispute.

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

The responding party disputed the number of employees in the bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act, which the Board noted does not apply to construction industry applications.

Finding that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken and ordered the ballots to be segregated and the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the dispute over the identity of the employer.

The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 v. Neil Skelding c.o.b. as Provincial Power and Electrical Services, 2000 CanLII 4582

John Morgan Lewis

Employment standards review application terminated due to applicant's failure to file the required procedural form.

The applicant submitted correspondence to the Ontario Labour Relations Board purporting to apply for a review under the Employment Standards Act.

The Registrar advised the applicant that the appeal did not conform with Rule 24 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, which requires the use of Form A-69.

The applicant was given 20 working days to file the proper form.

As the applicant failed to submit a completed Form A-69 within the specified timeframe, the Board terminated the proceeding.

Dean Haining v. Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 9164

John Morgan Lewis

Application for review of Order to Pay deemed timely after applicant complied with payment requirement.

The applicant sought to review an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act and initially requested a delayed appeal without paying the required amount into trust.

The Board previously ruled it lacked authority to waive the payment requirement under s. 68(7) of the Act and set a deadline for compliance.

The applicant subsequently filed the application for review and paid the stipulated amount to the Director of Employment Standards by the deadline.

The Board found the application timely and directed the Registrar to process it.

Veriana Verburg o/a The Port Colborne Shopper v. Kim Wilson Piper, Employment Standards Officer and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 11981

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy