Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 29, 2001

Responding parties directed to file submissions regarding applicant's request for production of documents.

The applicant sought an order for the production of documents.

The Adjudicator/Referee directed the responding parties to file submissions regarding the request by June 6, 2001.

All Employees Represented by The Toronto Enforcement Advocacy Model for Employment Standards (TEAMES) v. Filet of Sole Sea Grill Limited, 2001 CanLII 10230

Employer ordered to pay $50,614.86 for unpaid wages and benefits after failing to appear.

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

The responding party employer failed to file a response or appear at the hearing.

The Board found that the employer was bound by the Provincial Collective Agreement and had violated it by failing to pay wages to one employee and failing to remit benefit payments for four other employees.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $50,614.86 in damages and collection costs.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America Local Union No. 1669 v. David Sundmark c.o.b. as David Sundmark Construction, 2001 CanLII 8171

M. Klein

6 cases2000–2025

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 28, 2001

Employer found liable for termination and severance pay as a successor employer following a strategic alliance.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay termination and severance pay to two former employees.

The employees were originally employed by a company that was purchased by Cassidy's, which later entered into a strategic alliance with the applicant.

The applicant hired the employees but subsequently terminated them.

The Board found that while the applicant and Cassidy's were not related employers under section 12 of the Employment Standards Act, a sale of part of a business had occurred under section 13.

The applicant was therefore a successor employer and liable for termination and severance pay, though the Board varied the amounts owing based on notice provided and actual salary.

Bruce Edmeades Sales Limited v. Lichti, 2001 CanLII 6299

Laura Trachuk

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 28, 2001

Board issues consent order requiring employer to pay $42,728.44 for unpaid union trust fund remittances.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer failed to make required remittances to various health, welfare, and pension trust funds.

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

On consent, the Board declared the employer bound by the collective agreement, found it had violated the agreement by failing to make the remittances for January, February, and March 2001, and ordered the employer to pay $42,728.44 in damages.

Universal Worker’s Union, L.I.U.N.A., Local 183 v. Select Concrete & Drain Inc., 2001 CanLII 6197

Laura Trachuk

G. Pickell

A. Haward

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 28, 2001

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.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, (Local Union 1590) v. J.A. MacDonald (London) Ltd., 2001 CanLII 17383

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 18, 2001

Application terminated due to the applicant's failure to respond to the Board.

The applicant failed to provide any correspondence to the Board following a previous decision dated May 7, 2001.

Consequently, the Board ordered the application terminated.

David Fisher v. UA – Local 787, 2001 CanLII 9681

Ross Dunsmore

18 cases1980–2022

Howard Goldblatt

In Private Practice99 cases1984–2025

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 17, 2001

Platoon Chiefs do not exercise managerial functions and remain in the firefighters' bargaining unit.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 54(2) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act for a declaration that Platoon Chiefs exercise managerial functions and should be excluded from the firefighters' bargaining unit.

The Board reviewed the duties of Platoon Chiefs, noting that while they supervise shifts and are the highest-ranking officers present 70% of the time, they lack the authority to materially affect the economic lives of the firefighters they supervise.

They do not hire, fire, or effectively recommend discipline.

The Board concluded that Platoon Chiefs do not exercise managerial functions and remain in the bargaining unit.

The Corporation of the City of Brantford v. Brantford Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, 2001 CanLII 18179

Mr. Klein

2 cases2001–2026

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 14, 2001

Employer precluded from raising new successor employer defence years after agreeing to bifurcate related employer liability hearing.

The applicants sought a review of an Order to Pay for termination and severance pay, and the parties agreed to bifurcate the hearing to determine related employer liability under section 12 of the Employment Standards Act first, leaving only quantum issues for later.

After the Adjudicator upheld the section 12 liability and the applicants' judicial review was dismissed, the applicants attempted to raise a new liability defence under section 13 (successor employer) and a new factual defence regarding one employee's resignation.

The Adjudicator refused to permit the new issues to be raised, finding it would cause substantial prejudice to the claimants who had relied on the bifurcation agreement for years.

Algo Group Inc. v. Abreu, 2001 CanLII 9336

Mark Stone

12 cases1997–2013

Karima Chatur

53 cases1999–2001

Dan Salvarinas

1 case2001–2001

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 11, 2001

Order to pay rescinded; HVAC technician fell within construction exemption for repair work.

The applicant employer requested a review of an Order to Pay termination pay to a former employee, a refrigeration mechanic.

The employer argued the employee was covered by the construction exemption in Regulation 327(2)(e) of the Employment Standards Act, which exempts persons employed in the repair of works at the site thereof.

The Board found that the majority of the work performed by the employee was repair work at the customer's premises, rather than maintenance.

Consequently, the employee fell within the construction exemption and was not entitled to termination pay.

The Order to Pay was rescinded.

Branair Ltd. v. John Paul Betz and Ministry of Labour, 2001 CanLII 5849

Peigi Ross

21 cases1995–2015

Andrea Bowker

Practising Law - Employed64 cases1995–2026

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 10, 2001

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union reasonably withdrew grievance after applicant resigned over shift dispute.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing his termination grievance and other grievances related to outsourcing.

The Board found that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The union reasonably believed the termination grievance could not succeed because the applicant had left a recorded message refusing to work his scheduled shift, which the employer treated as a resignation.

The application was dismissed.

John Neary v. United Steelworkers of America, Local 4605, 2001 CanLII 6558

Laura Trachuk

Board issues consent order settling duty of fair representation complaint and terminates the application.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party union violated section 74.

The parties resolved the matter by entering into a memorandum of agreement, which included the distribution of certain audit reports to members, a payment of $150 to the applicant for costs and lost wages, and an expression of regret by the union.

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

Jack Byrne v. CUPE Local 1883, 2001 CanLII 4041

Laura Trachuk

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board on consent of the parties.

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

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The Corporation of the City of Belleville v. Belleville Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, 2001 CanLII 12367

Laura Trachuk

Application withdrawn as the Board held the applicant was bound by the signed settlement agreement.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party union violated section 74.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to settle the complaint, which included the applicant seeking leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant subsequently attempted to retract his withdrawal, complaining about the mediation process.

The Board held that a signed written settlement is binding and a party cannot subsequently change their mind.

The application was withdrawn pursuant to the agreement.

Yahya Misri v. Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75, 2001 CanLII 4794

Laura Trachuk

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board on consent of the parties.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

Romano Masotti v. Southfork Aggregates Inc., 2001 CanLII 17324

Laura Trachuk

Application terminated due to applicant's failure to file required materials.

The applicant failed to file materials as directed by the Board in a previous decision.

Consequently, the application was terminated.

Fernando Medeiros v. USWA Local 4610, 2001 CanLII 9375

Laura Trachuk

Application for review of Order to Pay terminated following confidential settlement between the parties.

The applicant filed a request for review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties resolved the matter through a confidential settlement, and the Board terminated the application.

Soeurs de la Charité d’Ottawa (Couvent Mont. St. Joseph) v. Marie-Géralde Cayemitte, 2001 CanLII 4264

Laura Trachuk

Applicant directed to advise if he wishes to proceed after union paid claimed monies.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union advised the Board that all claimed monies had been paid and the T4 form provided.

The Board directed the applicant to advise by a specified date if he wished to proceed, failing which the application would be terminated.

David Fisher v. UA - Local 787, 2001 CanLII 5964

Laura Trachuk

Adjournment of duty of fair representation hearing granted.

The responding party union sought an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for May 23, 2001, regarding an application alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board granted the adjournment and rescheduled the hearing to June 5, 2001.

Lewis R. Reed v. Local 5296 United Steelworkers of America, 2001 CanLII 7764

Laura Trachuk

Board Officer appointed to assist parties in resolving bargaining agent disputes following municipal amalgamation.

The applicant municipality filed an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 concerning collective bargaining issues resulting from a municipal amalgamation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board appointed a Board Officer pursuant to section 37(3) of the Act to meet with the parties and attempt to resolve the matters in dispute.

The Board directed the employer to post the decision in the workplace and provided instructions for any other bargaining agents or employees wishing to participate in the proceeding.

The Corporation of the Municipality of Greenstone v. CUPE Local 3045 – Town of Geraldton, 2001 CanLII 17586

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

H. Peacock

OLRB0 cases1987–2001