A. Haward

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

The Board heard submissions on how the hearing should proceed and issued procedural directions, including notice to an affected union, filing of interventions, specification of claims related to a pending jurisdictional dispute, and provision of particulars regarding contractual relations and work assignments.

The matter was adjourned.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The parties disputed whether two carpenters working on the site were employees of the responding party general contractor or independent subcontractors.

The Board applied the dependent contractor test, examining the economic and business relationship.

The Board found that the individuals had negotiated a fixed-price contract, had the opportunity for profit or loss, and were not economically dependent on the general contractor in a manner analogous to employees.

As the individuals were independent contractors, there were insufficient employees in the proposed bargaining unit on the date of application, and the certification application was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding unpaid vacation pay and trust fund contributions.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement and requested a consent order.

The Board issued declarations that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement and had violated it by failing to make appropriate remittances.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $5,790.95 in damages as agreed in the settlement.

The applicant union requested that the Board strike the pleadings of the responding parties and determine the case based on the facts stated in the application, alleging partial default in document production by one respondent and noting the lack of participation by others.

The Board directed the responding parties to file submissions addressing the extent of the default and their interest in proceeding, given that one respondent never filed a response, another's mail was returned, and the third's counsel had removed himself from the record.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A representation vote was held, and the union challenged the eligibility of three individuals, arguing they were not performing bargaining unit work on the application date.

Following a hearing, the Board issued a bottom-line decision finding the three individuals were not performing bargaining unit work and their ballots would not be counted.

As more than 50 per cent of the valid ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Board ordered the issuance of certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the relevant geographic area.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its applications against the responding parties following the execution of Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the applications were withdrawn.

The applicant union referred three construction industry grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the use of non-union workers and failure to pay benefits.

The parties resolved the matters and entered into Minutes of Settlement, requesting the Board to incorporate them into a consent order.

The Board issued the consent order, directing the responding party to pay $100,000 to the applicant in accordance with the agreed payment schedule, and declined to adjourn the matter sine die as there were no remaining issues to adjudicate.

The applicant union referred three grievances to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party failed to make required deductions and contributions to various benefit plans.

The responding party did not attend the hearing.

Based on the evidence of the union's business representative, the Board found the responding party was bound by the Carpenters Provincial ICI Collective Agreement and had failed to remit the required contributions.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $24,544.12 in damages, plus $5,282.00 in costs and fees, for a total of $29,826.12.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matters to August 25, 2000, unless a jurisdictional dispute application is filed by August 10, 2000, in which case the matters will be adjourned sine die.

The Board ordered the adjournment on consent.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party failed to remit benefits, dues, contributions, and deductions.

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

The Board issued declarations and orders incorporating the settlement, including that the responding party is bound to the provincial collective agreement, violated it by failing to remit amounts, and owes $6,050.00.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervenor union objected to the representation vote, arguing that it did not receive proper notice and that its name was incorrectly listed on the ballot.

The Board dismissed the notice argument but agreed that the ballot's use of a truncated name for the intervenor likely confused voters, as the intervenor consistently used a distinct name to identify itself.

Finding that the vote results would not likely reveal the true wishes of the employees, the Board ordered a second representation vote pursuant to section 111(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted a consent request to adjourn three jurisdictional dispute 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.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and referred a grievance in the construction industry.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement and requested a consent order.

The Board declared the responding parties bound by the collective agreement, found they had violated it, and ordered them to pay $2,177.78 to the applicant union on a joint and several basis.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant and responding party 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.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its applications against the City of Toronto and the Toronto Parking Authority.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered a new representation vote in a certification application.

The ballots from the initial vote held on March 31, 2000, were ordered destroyed without being counted.

A second representation vote was scheduled for June 29, 2000, with further reasons to follow.

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

The Board initially issued a decision without a hearing based on the applicant's request.

The applicant subsequently requested that the Board cancel its decision and proceed to a scheduled hearing.

The Board reconsidered and rescinded its previous decision, ordering the matter to proceed to hearing.

The responding party requested reconsideration of a Board decision which found that the facts it alleged could not give rise to a finding of abandonment of bargaining rights.

The responding party argued the Board improperly considered facts not set out in the response or documents filed.

The Board reviewed its jurisprudence on reconsideration and found that it had properly noted the lack of evidence regarding the affiliated bargaining agents' knowledge and had appropriately drawn inferences from the pleaded facts.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party disputed the number of employees in the bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act.

The Board held that section 8.1 does not apply to construction industry certification applications and declined to seal the ballot box on that basis.

Finding that the applicant had the requisite membership support, the Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed a representation vote.