Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 13, 2000

Application dismissed for failure to file submissions and lack of provincial jurisdiction.

The applicant failed to provide submissions as directed by the Board.

The Board dismissed the application due to the lack of submissions and because labour relations in the applicant's workplace appeared to be federally regulated.

Terri Whalen v. Teamster’s Local 419 Union, 2000 CanLII 10159

Board directs submissions on timeliness of termination application filed before 30 days elapsed from 'no board' report.

The applicants filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The responding union claimed the application was untimely under s. 67(2)(c) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as 30 days had not elapsed since the issuance of a 'no board' report.

The union also alleged procedural defects in service.

The Board directed the applicants to file submissions on the timeliness and service issues before deciding whether to process the application further.

Carcamo v. Service Employees’ International Union, Local 204 AFL-CIO, CLC, 2000 CanLII 10179

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 12, 2000

D. A. Patterson

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

Representation vote directed for part-time academic staff and librarians at Wilfrid Laurier University.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent part-time contract academic staff and part-time professional librarians at Wilfrid Laurier University.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held on December 14, 2000, and defined the voting constituency.

Wilfrid Laurier University Faculty Association v. Wilfrid Laurier University, 2000 CanLII 10019

Laura Trachuk

Representation votes for certification applications postponed due to inclement weather; one application withdrawn.

The applicant union filed three certification applications.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw one application and cancelled its scheduled representation vote.

The Board postponed the representation votes for the remaining two applications due to inclement weather preventing the Returning Officers from travelling.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Central Park Lodges Inc., 2000 CanLII 4459

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit in application for certification.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Based on the agreement of the parties regarding the appropriate bargaining unit and the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Northwestern Ontario Recycle Association, 2000 CanLII 10265

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

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

The Ontario Public Service Employees' Union filed applications against the John Howard Society of Peel.

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

If neither party requests to proceed within that time, the applications will be deemed terminated.

Ontario Public Service Employees' Union v. John Howard Society of Peel, 2000 CanLII 11091

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Application adjourned sine die 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 matter will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

Communications, energy and Paperworkers Union Local 87-M Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild v. The Expositor, Hollinger Canadian Newspapers L.P., 2000 CanLII 8270

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Board defers dismissal of section 11(2) allegations to hearing panel but warns about lacking particulars.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held.

The responding party requested a new representation vote under section 11(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, based on allegations of an anonymous threat.

The applicant sought to dismiss these allegations for lack of particulars.

The Board deferred the dismissal request to the hearing panel, noting that failure to provide particulars of the alleged threat prior to the hearing could result in the Board declining to permit evidence on the matter.

United Steelworkers of America v. Premdor Inc., 2000 CanLII 10098

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Board directed a representation vote for union certification based on the agreement of the parties.

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

The parties agreed to resolve all outstanding issues by holding another representation vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken on December 15, 2000.

Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183 v. John Ewing & Co. Inc., 2000 CanLII 8647

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed in displacement application for certification despite bargaining unit dispute.

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

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate 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 applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW –Canada) v. Precision Plate Ltd., 2000 CanLII 7680

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote ordered in displacement certification application; employer's timeliness and section 8.1 objections dismissed.

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

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The responding party argued the application was untimely due to the appointment of a conciliation officer, but the Board held it was timely because the collective agreement had not yet expired.

The Board also dismissed the responding party's section 8.1 notice as there was no dispute over the number of employees or the core bargaining unit description.

A representation vote was ordered.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Woarkers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. The Corporation of the Township of Terrace Bay, 2000 CanLII 7521

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Board directs intervenor to provide particulars of employer interference allegations and defers ballot counting.

The applicant union requested a copy of a letter from an intervenor and particulars of her allegations regarding employer interference in a certification application.

The Board directed the intervenor to provide written submissions detailing who made the alleged statements and when.

The Board declined the applicant's request to count the ballots at an upcoming meeting, noting the request could be renewed at the scheduled hearing.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 333 v. Leisure World Inc., 2000 CanLII 2070

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit at Summit Food Service Distributors Inc.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Summit Food Service Distributors Inc. 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.

United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 206 v. Summit Food Service Distributors Inc., 2000 CanLII 10752

Jacquie Chic

8 cases2000–2001

Fred Luk

Elizabeth Long

Bruce Arnott

15 cases1999–2011

Angela Rae

34 cases1990–2023

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 6, 2000

Applicant ordered to disclose specific employees represented and particulars of their wage claims.

In an application for outstanding wages under the Employment Standards Act, the Adjudicator/Referee issued procedural directions regarding disclosure and particulars.

The applicant, representing an unidentified group of employees, was ordered to disclose the specific individuals it represents and the particulars of their claims, as it is not possible to proceed with the hearing without knowing who is claiming entitlement to the monies.

The responding parties were ordered to provide relevant documents pertaining to those individuals.

The subpoenas for the Employment Standards Officers were quashed, as their evidence would not be necessary once the employees and their claims were identified.

All Employees Represented by TEAMES v. Filet of Sole Sea Grill Limited, 2000 CanLII 6776

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 1, 2000

Request to present witness evidence by telephone denied; in-person attendance required.

The applicant requested that arrangements be made to receive evidence from a witness by telephone.

The Adjudicator/Referee denied the request, ruling that witnesses must be present in the hearing room to be observed giving testimony, to present relevant documents, and to be cross-examined in person.

All Employees Represented by The Toronto Enforcement Advocacy Model for Employment Standards (TEAMES) v. Filet of Sole Sea Grill Limited, 2000 CanLII 2843

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 1, 2000

Request for reconsideration of a prior Board decision regarding union representation dismissed.

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

The Board reviewed the submissions and declined to reconsider its decision.

The Board noted its broad remedial powers under section 96(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and emphasized that a party who chooses not to attend a hearing forgoes the opportunity to make submissions on remedies.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

Byron R. Green v. Canadian Auto Workers Union Local #222 and C.A.W. National Union, 2000 CanLII 8859

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 28, 2000

Board refuses to dismiss duty of fair representation complaint without a consultation.

The applicant filed a complaint against his local union alleging a lack of assistance with his efforts to be reinstated to a job that would accommodate his disability.

The responding union requested that the Board dismiss the application without a consultation, arguing it had referred his workers compensation claim to the national office.

The Board declined to dismiss the matter, finding that the core allegation regarding reinstatement assistance warranted a consultation, and referred the application to a Labour Relations Officer.

Russel Bélanger v. CUPE 1974, 2000 CanLII 1536

Nini Jones

20 cases2000–2025

Michelle Porteous

J James Nyman

38 cases1981–2016

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 22, 2000

Board exercised discretion to refuse second certification application following recent unsuccessful vote by affiliated union.

The applicant union filed an application for certification shortly after an affiliated union lost a representation vote for the same full-time bargaining unit.

The incumbent union argued the Board should exercise its discretion not to entertain the application.

The Board found that the second application was essentially an attempt to have a second vote because the employees wanted to be represented by the same union as the part-time unit.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 111(2)(k) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to refuse to entertain the application, allowing the incumbent union the opportunity to exercise its mandate.

CAW Local 1075 v. Aramark Canada Limited, 2000 CanLII 2149

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 15, 2000

Application for review of an Order to Pay dismissed due to the applicant's failure to attend.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties engaged in discussions with a Labour Relations Officer, after which the applicant was satisfied with the Order to Pay and chose not to attend the hearing.

Due to the applicant's failure to attend, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

Bandaragamage Wimalasena v. J & K Disposal Services Ltd. and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 10341

Douglas R. Gray

Bruce Arnott

15 cases1999–2011

Anna Fliegl

Laura Trachuk