Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 5, 2000

Duty of fair representation application dismissed as scheduling delays do not establish a prima facie breach.

The applicant filed an application alleging that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, due to a ten-month delay in scheduling his consolidated grievances for arbitration.

The union and the employer requested that the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found that scheduling delays are common in grievance arbitration and are not fully within the union's control.

Concluding that the applicant failed to allege facts supporting a finding of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith representation, the Board exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Act to dismiss the application without a consultation.

Anthony Barry v. Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario, 2000 CanLII 12996

Employers are not required to exercise automatic managerial designations before applying to the Board for status determinations.

The responding firefighter associations raised preliminary objections to the employers' applications for declarations of managerial status under section 54(2) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act.

The associations argued that the employers must first exercise their statutory right to designate automatic exclusions under section 54(4) before applying to the Board.

The Hamilton association also argued that the application was barred or premature due to the pending municipal amalgamation.

The Board dismissed the objections, finding that the legislation does not require the employer to use its designations before applying to the Board, and that the pending amalgamation did not deprive the Board of jurisdiction to determine the composition of the existing bargaining unit.

The Corporation of the City of Brantford v. Brantford Professional Fire Fighters’ Association, 2000 CanLII 12640

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 21, 2000

Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union reasonably relied on signed grievance settlement.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union after it refused to assist her further following a failed test.

The union had previously taken her lay-off grievance to arbitration and negotiated a settlement, signed by the applicant, which provided she would be placed in another position if she passed a test.

After failing the test, the applicant claimed an 'anxiety testing disability' and sought further union assistance.

The Board dismissed the application without a consultation, finding no facts to suggest the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, as it was bound by the settlement agreement.

Colette McLean v. Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1916, 2000 CanLII 11803

R. R. Montague

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 20, 2000

Applications withdrawn with leave of the Board pursuant to the agreement of the parties.

The applicant filed applications against the responding party.

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the applications were withdrawn with leave of the Board.

Roberto Rosales v. Clayson Steel Inc., 2000 CanLII 7593

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 19, 2000

Board refers health and safety appeal to Registrar to schedule further hearing dates.

The appellant appealed a matter under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

A Labour Relations Specialist reported that further hearing dates should be scheduled while settlement discussions continue.

The Board referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule three further hearing dates.

United Steelworkers of America, Local 1005 v. Stelco Inc. (Hilton Works), 2000 CanLII 9129

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 14, 2000

Time to file response extended after responding party failed to receive faxed application.

The responding union requested reconsideration of a June 5, 2000 endorsement, stating it had not received a copy of the application.

Although Board records indicated the application was faxed on June 2, 2000, the Board accepted that it was not received.

The Board provided another copy of the application and extended the time for the responding party to file its response to 10 days after receipt of the decision.

Nancy Ann Patkau v. United Steelworkers of America, 2000 CanLII 11865

Nini Jones

20 cases2000–2025

Melissa Kronick

19 cases1994–2014

John Brady

2 cases1997–2000

George Kanick

1 case2000–2000

Anthony F. Dale

20 cases2000–2022

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRB0 cases1987–2001

Board invites submissions on whether a displacement certification application can proceed for a single-person bargaining unit.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification for full-time and part-time bargaining units of nurses.

A dispute arose regarding the composition of the full-time bargaining unit, which appeared to contain only one person.

The intervenor union argued that the application for the full-time unit must be dismissed because section 9(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires a bargaining unit to consist of more than one employee.

The Board noted that while its practice in displacement applications is to find the incumbent's bargaining unit appropriate, section 9(1) may preclude this if the unit has only one person.

The Board deferred its decision and invited the parties to make further submissions on the interpretation of section 9(1) and the appropriate bargaining unit.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Maplewood Nursing Home Limited o/a Cedarwood Village, 2000 CanLII 13450

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

G. McMenemy

Board corrects bargaining unit description in representation vote decision to refer to Town of Markdale.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision correcting an error in its previous decision dated June 9, 2000, which directed a representation vote.

The bargaining unit description was corrected to refer to 'all employees of the Corporation of the County of Grey in its home or homes for the aged in the Town of Markdale' instead of the Town of Durham.

The responding party was directed to post the correcting decision alongside the original decision.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. The Corporation of the County of Grey, 2000 CanLII 12133

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

G. McMenemy

Board corrected a clerical error in the bargaining unit description for a representation vote.

The Board issued a decision correcting a clerical error in its previous decision dated June 9, 2000, which directed a representation vote.

The responding party was directed to post the corrected decision alongside the original.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. The Corporation of the County of Grey, 2000 CanLII 12473

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

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

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers v. K-Line Insulators Limited, 2000 CanLII 10846

Stephen Shamie

4 cases1991–2016

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 10, 2000

Board declares unlawful strike and issues cease and desist order for refusal to cross picket line.

The applicant employer sought a declaration and orders under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that its employees were engaging in an unlawful strike by refusing to cross a picket line.

The responding union did not appear at the expedited hearing.

The Board found that the employees engaged in an unlawful strike and that the union authorized and encouraged it.

The Board issued a cease and desist order and directed the union to post a notice to employees.

Westroc Inc. v. CAW Local 1256, 2000 CanLII 11705

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

G. McMenemy

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 9, 2000

Board orders single representation vote for competing certification applications and declines to seal ballot box.

Two unions filed displacement applications for certification of employees currently represented by the Service Employees International Union, Local 220.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion to treat the applications as filed on the same day and ordered a single representation vote.

The Board dismissed the incumbent union's request to delay the vote or seal the ballot box based on pending court proceedings and unparticularized unfair labour practice allegations.

A dissenting Board 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. The Corporation of the County of Grey Operating as Grey County Homes for the Aged: Grey Gables, 2000 CanLII 12077

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 9, 2000

Expedited hearing scheduled for employer's application alleging an unlawful strike by the union.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union and its officials authorized and encouraged an unlawful strike.

The Board reviewed the statutory provisions prohibiting strikes during the term of a collective agreement and the available remedies for unlawful strikes.

Emphasizing the need for expedition in such matters, the Board scheduled an expedited hearing for the following day.

Westroc Inc. v. CAW Local 1256, 2000 CanLII 7134

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 7, 2000

Representation vote directed in certification application with ballot box sealed due to bargaining unit dispute.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of Famous Players Inc. at a specific location.

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 applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support and directed a representation vote.

Due to the section 8.1 notice and the dispute over the inclusion of supervisors, the Board ordered that the ballot box be sealed and any ballots cast by disputed individuals be segregated.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 175 v. Famous Players Inc., 2000 CanLII 10410

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 5, 2000

Application withdrawn pursuant to the agreement of the parties.

The applicant, Christian Labour Association of Canada, filed an application against the responding party employer.

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.

Christian Labour Association of Canada v. 298509 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Waltron Limited, 2000 CanLII 8993

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 5, 2000

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

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

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

Milk and Bread Drivers, Dairy Employees, Caterers and Allied Employees, Local 647 v. Natrel (Ontario) Inc., 2000 CanLII 10355

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 31, 2000

Request for reconsideration of dismissed work refusal appeal denied as pleadings disclosed no hazard.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed his appeal for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Health and Safety Inspector had previously found that the applicant's work assignment—being available as a resource person for health and safety consultation—did not indicate any risk or hazard under section 43(3) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that the pleadings did not disclose any facts supporting a reasonable belief that the work assignment was likely to endanger the applicant or another worker.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

W. McNaught v. Toronto Transit Commission and Ministry of Labour, 2000 CanLII 13464

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 29, 2000

Board ordered disbursement of funds held in trust following settlement of an employment standards dispute.

The applicant employer applied for a review under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer and two employees entered into Minutes of Settlement, which were approved by the Ministry of Labour.

The Board directed the Director in Trust to disburse the settlement funds to the employees and return the remaining amounts, including an administrative fee, to the employer.

Paradise Casino Consultants Inc. v. Lorraine Abramovitz et al, 2000 CanLII 13259

Laura Trachuk

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 25, 2000

Duty of fair representation application dismissed as union reasonably concluded grievance over resignation would fail.

The applicant resigned from his employment and subsequently attempted to retract his resignation.

The employer declined to accept the retraction.

The union initially filed a grievance alleging unjust discipline but later withdrew it after consulting legal counsel, concluding the grievance would not succeed.

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

The Board dismissed the application without a consultation, finding no prima facie case that the union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner in deciding not to proceed to arbitration.

Daniel MacKinnon v. CEP Local 87-M Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild, 2000 CanLII 13447

William Anderson

5 cases2000–2016

Oriana Lazzaro

1 case2000–2000

Laura Trachuk