A. Haward

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

The Board noted issues with the applicant's trade union status and the form of its membership evidence, directing that any ballots cast in a representation vote be sealed until status is established.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote to be held on March 28, 2000.

The applicant union filed an application for certification in the construction industry.

An intervenor union filed an intervention, asserting the application should be dismissed without prejudice to filing a displacement application, as it had an existing collective agreement with the employer.

The applicant disputed the validity of the collective agreement but alternatively requested to amend its bargaining unit to mirror the intervenor's agreement for a displacement application.

The Board found it appropriate to treat the application as a displacement application, amended the bargaining unit description, and directed a representation vote to ascertain the employees' wishes.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to remit trust fund contributions.

The employer failed to file a response.

The Board applied its Rules of Procedure to deem the facts in the application accepted, finding the employer liable for violating the collective agreement.

However, because the applicant failed to plead sufficient facts to quantify the damages, the Board directed that the scheduled hearing proceed solely to assess damages.

The applicant filed a referral of a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, certifying that the required documents were delivered to the responding party by fax.

Counsel for the responding party claimed they did not receive the referral form and requested the file be reprocessed.

The Board noted that the responding party did not raise this issue immediately upon receiving the Board's confirmation of filing.

The Board directed the applicant to provide evidence establishing that the faxed documents were actually received by the responding party, failing which the referral would be dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to send a laid-off employee's final pay and termination documents within 24 hours as required by the collective agreement.

The responding party failed to file a response.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board deemed the responding party to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the employer violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $1,464.48 in damages for five days' waiting time, plus $214.00 for filing fees.

The applicant's claim for interest and costs was denied for lack of particulars.

The applicant trade union sought a declaration that Bruno Facchin Interiors Ltd. was bound by a collective agreement as a result of a sale of business from R & B Painting Ltd., or alternatively, that the two companies were related employers under common control and direction.

The Board found that there was no sale of business, as R & B's business had been sold to a third party that subsequently went bankrupt.

While the Board found that the two companies were related and under common control, it declined to exercise its discretion to issue a single employer declaration.

The Board concluded that the principal had started a new, distinct business and that the union's bargaining rights attached to the original business, not to the principal personally.

The application was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.

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

On the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within one year.

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

The Board found that the applicant had not previously established its status as a trade union and would be required to do so.

However, based on the membership evidence filed, the Board was satisfied that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit appeared to be members of the applicant.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Board issued a consent order declaring the responding party bound by the collective agreement, finding it had violated the agreement, and ordering it to pay $39,400 in damages to the applicant.

The applicant union requested an adjournment sine die pending Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, adjourning the application for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant union referred two grievances to arbitration under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

On the second day of the hearing, the parties entered into minutes of settlement.

The employer acknowledged it was bound by the Carpenters Provincial Collective Agreement, admitted to violating it, and agreed to pay $15,000 to the union.

The employer also agreed that scaffolding work is covered by the agreement and will be assigned to union members.

The Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, requesting a determination without a hearing.

The Board noted a discrepancy between the applicant's name and the name on the collective agreement provided.

Consequently, the Board declined to issue a default decision and set the matter down for a hearing to address the issue.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to pay fringe benefit remittances.

The responding party failed to file a response.

The Board reconsidered and revoked an earlier decision that declined to issue an order, noting the applicant had filed ample material that was omitted due to an administrative error.

Proceeding by default, the Board found the employer violated the collective agreement and ordered it to provide employee lists, pay all outstanding fringe benefits, and pay $1,750 for late payments.

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

The responding party argued that the workers were independent contractors, an issue the Board deferred until after the representation vote.

Finding that the union appeared to have the requisite membership support, the Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be held.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding employer failed to pay required fringe benefit remittances.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the responding party was deemed to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the responding party violated the collective agreement, ordered the production of employee lists, and directed payment of outstanding remittances and a penalty for late payments.

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 application would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file submissions regarding the adequacy of documents produced by one of the responding parties.

The Board granted the extension.

The Board noted a total failure to produce documents by the other two responding parties but declined to initiate contempt proceedings or strike pleadings at this time.

However, the Board warned that continued failure to comply with the production order would likely result in the exclusion of unproduced documents and adverse inferences being drawn.

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 employer failed to remit benefit contributions and union dues.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the responding party was deemed to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board declared the employer bound by the collective agreement, found it in violation, and ordered it to pay $34,436.97 in damages and $214.00 in costs.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for electricians and electricians' apprentices employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued two certificates pursuant to section 160(1) of the Act.

One certificate was issued for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector province-wide, and another for all other sectors in the specified geographic areas.

The applicants referred grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties agreed to adjourn the proceedings sine die pending the resolution of an underlying jurisdictional dispute, on the understanding that the applicants would file work assignment complaints under section 99 of the Act.

The Board granted the adjournment sine die on consent and directed that the future work assignment complaints be listed and scheduled together.