John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 28, 2000

Board exercised discretion to relieve against late filing of notice of intent to defend.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking damages for a collective agreement violation.

The responding party filed its notice of intent to defend one day late, as its principal was on vacation.

The Board exercised its discretion under Rule 44 to relieve against the strict application of Rule 158, noting the minimal delay and an issue regarding the applicant's name on the collective agreement.

The Board declined to issue a default decision and set the matter down for a hearing.

Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183 v. Sanan Construction, 2000 CanLII 12719

John Morgan Lewis

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 28, 2000

Board deferred preliminary objections to the hearing and stayed related disclosure obligations.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

In its reply, the responding hospital raised preliminary objections, arguing that certain allegations regarding future plans were premature and that allegations of a section 70 breach lacked sufficient particulars.

The hospital requested that the objections be dismissed or that it not be required to disclose facts or documents related to the future plans until the objections were determined.

The Board directed that the preliminary objections be dealt with on the first day of the hearing and stayed the hospital's disclosure obligations regarding the disputed allegations pending that determination.

Ontario Nurses’ Association v. West Park Hospital and Extendicare Inc., 2000 CanLII 13400

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 27, 2000

Board incorporated partial settlement of grievance into a decision and ordered payment of $802.22.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Partial Settlement regarding two individuals.

The Board issued a decision incorporating the settlement terms, ordering the responding party to pay $802.22 to one individual, and scheduling a further hearing for the remaining issues.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353 v. Cablecom International Network Cabling, Division of the State Group Limited, 2000 CanLII 4698

John Morgan Lewis

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 27, 2000

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application.

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

Sudbury Mine Mill and Smelter Workers’ Union, Local 598/CAW v. Falconbridge Limited – Craig Mine, 2000 CanLII 2093

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 27, 2000

Hearing adjourned on consent of the parties.

The parties requested an adjournment of the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the request and adjourned the hearing to May 3, 2000.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 303 v. Weinmann Electric Limited, 2000 CanLII 10245

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 23, 2000

Board appoints Labour Relations Officer to post workplace notice after responding parties failed to comply.

The Board noted that the responding parties failed to post Form B-25(A) as directed in a previous decision.

Pursuant to sections 111(2)(g) and (h) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to enter the premises and post the notice and a copy of the decision.

Employees were given 14 days to make written representations.

International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 786 v. Calorific Construction Limited, 2000 CanLII 12041

John Morgan Lewis

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 23, 2000

Board issued a consent order incorporating minutes of settlement resolving a grievance and union membership dispute.

The parties entered into minutes of settlement regarding a grievance referral and an unfair labour practice application.

The settlement required the employer to pay $7,500 in damages to the union in installments.

It also required the union to accept two employees into membership upon payment of specified initiation fees and first month's dues.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 46 v. Marsil Mechanical Inc., 2000 CanLII 13169

John Morgan Lewis

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 22, 2000

Grievance allowed and damages awarded after responding party refused to participate in the hearing.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party violated the collective agreement by employing non-union workers at a project.

The responding party and its counsel refused to participate in the hearing after the Board declined to reconsider a previous decision.

Proceeding in their absence under Rule 45, the Board heard evidence from the union's business manager and found that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement and had violated it.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $19,180.87 in damages.

International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 200 v. Paul Skov carrying on business as S. & S. Glass & Renovators, 2000 CanLII 12839

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 22, 2000

Request for reconsideration of single employer declaration dismissed as untimely and lacking merit.

The responding parties filed a request for reconsideration of a Board decision that declared them a single employer and bound them to a collective agreement.

The request was filed more than 20 days after the decision, making it untimely under Rule 96 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board also noted that even if it exercised its discretion to consider the request, it would be dismissed on its merits because the responding parties failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not filing a response to the original application, where they could have raised their arguments.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 200 v. S. & S. Glass & Aluminum (1993) Ltd., 2000 CanLII 11760

John Morgan Lewis

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 21, 2000

Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to post required notices after responding parties failed to comply.

The Board noted that the responding parties failed to post Form B-25(A) as directed in a previous decision regarding an application under section 69 and subsection 1(4) of the Act.

Pursuant to sections 111(2)(g) and (h) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board appointed a Labour Relations Officer to enter the premises where work is being done by the responding parties' employees and post the required notice and a copy of the decision.

Employees were given 14 days to make written representations.

Ontario Sheet Metal Workers’ & Roofers’ Conference Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local 537 v. CJA’s Construction Ltd., 2000 CanLII 12081

L. Eisenberg

29 cases2000–2001

Donald G. Chillman

1 case2000–2000

John Morgan Lewis

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 21, 2000

Overtime pay claim dismissed; shift supervisor found to fall within the managerial exclusion.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying his claim for overtime pay.

The applicant argued he was a lead hand, not a manager, and thus entitled to overtime pay for the excessive hours he worked.

The Board found that the applicant's position as Afternoon Shift Supervisor was managerial in character, as he supervised up to 85 employees, attended management meetings, and only occasionally worked alongside production employees.

The application was dismissed.

Samuel Jonas v. Summerfresh Salads Inc., 2000 CanLII 12491

John Morgan Lewis

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 10, 2000

Application dismissed due to lack of submissions from the responding parties.

The applicant, Tower Light Ltd., filed an application naming several employees and the Ministry of Labour as responding parties.

Following a previous Board decision and having received no submissions from the responding employees by the specified date, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

Tower Light Ltd. v. Bedour, 2000 CanLII 10596

John Morgan Lewis

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 9, 2000

Reconsideration granted and application for review found timely after Director accepted a letter of guarantee.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision that found his application for review untimely due to failure to pay the amount stipulated in an Order to Pay.

The Director of Employment Standards agreed to accept a letter of guarantee for $100.00 pursuant to section 68(7) of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board granted the reconsideration request, found the application timely, and directed the Registrar to process the matter.

Ritchie Baird v. Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 12101

John Morgan Lewis

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 9, 2000

Application for review of Order to Pay found timely upon reconsideration due to incorrect address on Order.

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

The Board initially found the application to be untimely because it was filed after the 45-day limit, interpreting the limit as calendar days rather than working days.

Upon reconsideration on its own motion, the Board noted that the applicant had originally delivered its submissions to the incorrect address provided on the Order to Pay itself on the 45th day.

The Board found the application was timely and directed it to be processed.

Idlewood Inn v. Tom McIlwaine and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 13492

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 9, 2000

Board deems facts accepted in undefended related employer application but requires employee notice posting before issuing declaration.

The applicant union filed an application for a related employer and sale of business declaration against the responding parties.

Despite receiving extensions, the responding parties failed to file a response.

The applicant requested that the Board deem the facts in the application accepted pursuant to Rules 40 and 41 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board granted the request and deemed the facts accepted, finding they made out a prima facie case for a related employer declaration.

However, the Board declined to issue the declaration immediately because the required notice to employees had not been posted.

The Board directed a Labour Relations Officer to post the notice at the responding parties' worksites and extended the terminal date.

International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers, Local 786 v. Calorific Construction Limited, 2000 CanLII 12042

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 8, 2000

Grievance and jurisdictional dispute withdrawn following parties' agreement on work assignments.

The parties reached an agreement during the hearing of a grievance referral and a jurisdictional dispute concerning work assignments at the Westcast Foundry.

The agreement delineated the specific trench digging and backfilling work assigned to LIUNA Local 1059 and IBEW Local 120.

Based on this agreement, LIUNA Local 1059 withdrew its grievance, and the Board granted leave to withdraw both applications.

Labourers International Union of North America, Local 1059 v. Comstock Canada Ltd., 2000 CanLII 4975

John Morgan Lewis

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 3, 2000

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

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 would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

Masonry Council of Unions Toronto and Vicinity v. Geranium Homes Ltd., 2000 CanLII 3419

John Morgan Lewis

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMar 3, 2000

Reconsideration granted to allow an extension of time for filing an application for review.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Board decision dated February 15, 2000.

The Board granted the reconsideration and granted the applicant an extension of time for filing the application for review.

Mayaka International (Canada) Inc. v. Koon, 2000 CanLII 12544

Rob Bolan

1 case2000–2000

Maurizio Vani

In Private Practice1 case2000–2000

Alexander Ahee

2 cases1985–2000

John Morgan Lewis

J. G. Knight

G. McMenemy