Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Board directs submissions on timeliness of displacement certification application amid ongoing interest arbitration.

In a displacement application for certification, the intervenor claimed the application was untimely due to ongoing interest arbitration under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board directed the applicant and responding party to file submissions on the timeliness issue before deciding whether to hold a representation vote.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay Homes for the Aged, 2001 CanLII 13751

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote directed in certification application; majority declines to seal ballot box despite employer's section 8.1 notice.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and determined that the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate.

Although the responding party disputed the union's estimate of the number of employees and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the majority of the Board found the numerical difference insignificant and directed a representation vote without sealing the ballot box.

A dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Marks Lumber Limited, 2001 CanLII 10597

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Board orders representation vote for Comfort Inn employees following union certification application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at a Comfort Inn in Pickering, Ontario.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the parties agreed on the appropriate bargaining unit.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

U.F.C.W. Local 333 v. Comfort Inn, 2001 CanLII 7985

Jim Hassell

4 cases1990–2001

Laura Trachuk

Employer committed unfair labour practice by terminating union organizers under pretext of time theft.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding party employer violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by terminating two employees who were key union organizers.

The employer claimed the employees were terminated for 'time theft' related to taking unauthorized smoking breaks outside.

The Board found that the employees had legitimate work duties outside and that the employer's investigation was rushed and inadequate.

The Board concluded that the terminations were motivated, at least in part, by anti-union animus and ordered the employees reinstated with compensation.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Matrix Logistics Services Ltd., 2001 CanLII 9913

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Photocopied documents are insufficient evidence of employee wishes in an application to terminate bargaining rights.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights, accompanied by photocopied documents purporting to show the wishes of employees not to be represented by the responding union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that photocopied documents are not sufficient evidence for the purposes of section 63(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board ordered that the application would not be processed further until the original evidence was provided, failing which the application would be terminated.

Domenic Sampogna v. Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers, 2001 CanLII 7672

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Request for extension of time to file response to certification application denied.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The responding party employer sought an extension of time until mid-May to file its response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, noting that subsection 8(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 contemplates representation votes being held within five days, which necessitates quick responses from responding parties.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Great Beginnings Child Centred Co-Operative, 2001 CanLII 3229

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Board directs representation vote for agreed bargaining unit despite dispute over employee estimate.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties agreed on the appropriate bargaining unit.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act, but agreed the ballots should be counted.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the agreed-upon voting constituency.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Toronto Bagel – Canada Bread, 2001 CanLII 9113

Laura Trachuk

Board directs applicant to file submissions on timeliness objection to certification application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The intervenor objected, arguing the application was untimely under section 28(2) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act because a related application had been filed earlier.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions regarding the timeliness objection before deciding whether to order a vote, dismiss, or defer the application.

International Brotherhood of electrical Workers, Local 636 v. Westario Power Services Inc., 2001 CanLII 6541

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Board directed parties to advise if they wish to proceed with adjourned application or face termination.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

After multiple adjournments and a failure by the parties to respond to the Registrar's request for a status update, the Board directed the parties to advise whether they wished to proceed by a specified date, failing which the application would be terminated.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 v. The Board of Governors of the Riverdale Hospital, 2001 CanLII 8077

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote ordered in certification application; ballot box not sealed despite employer's section 8.1 notice.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the numerical difference between the parties' estimates was not significant.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with disputed ballots to be segregated.

A dissenting member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. G.F.I. Control Systems Inc., 2001 CanLII 12477

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit of part-time employees after employer failed to respond.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent part-time employees of the responding party.

The responding party did not file a response.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2001 CanLII 21051

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote directed in displacement application for union certification.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada (I.W.A. Canada) v. Royal Homes Limited, 2001 CanLII 16885

Laura Trachuk

Extension of time to file particulars granted to July 6, 2001.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file particulars.

The other parties agreed to an extension to June 11, 2001, but the applicant requested July 6, 2001.

The Adjudicator/Referee granted the extension to July 6, 2001, to forestall further correspondence and mindful of the reasons for the request.

All Employees Represented by The Toronto Enforcement Advocacy Model for Employment Standards (TEAMES) v. Filet of Sole Sea Grill Limited O/A Fred’s Not Here Steakhouse & Grill, 2001 CanLII 20823

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote ordered for proposed bargaining unit of Participation House employees.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of Participation House, Waterloo Region.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers v. Participation House, Waterloo Region, 2001 CanLII 21050

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

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

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

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

Peggy L. Flack v. AMK Metal Products, 2001 CanLII 19036

Laura Trachuk

Application for interim order dismissed as main application failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The applicant sought an interim order.

The Board dismissed the related main application on the merits because it did not disclose facts upon which the Board could find a violation of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Consequently, the Board found that the application for an interim order also failed to disclose a prima facie case and dismissed it.

Barbara Gasperian v. Dough Delight/Canada Bread, Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Int’l. Union, Local 264, 2001 CanLII 3183

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Copper Terrace Nursing Home, 2001 CanLII 18917

Sean Hammond

In Private Practice16 cases1993–2016

Robert Healey

16 cases1993–2017

Lorenzo Lisi

Kong Chen

Jose Borges

Jillian Boyd

2 cases2001–2002

Jennifer Scott

37 cases1993–2011

Dave McIntosh

B. Russell

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 25, 2001

Adjournment granted due to counsel's illness; applicant's request for costs denied.

The intervenor requested an adjournment fifteen minutes prior to the scheduled consultation due to counsel's illness.

The applicant requested costs if the adjournment was granted, noting it was the third adjournment in two months.

The Board granted the adjournment but denied the request for costs, consistent with its jurisprudence.

A new date was set for the consultation.

Ronald W. Marsh v. United Steelworkers of America Local 1105, 2001 CanLII 17545

R. R. Montague

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson