A. Haward

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

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

The Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding party employer is bound by the Provincial Agreement and had violated its union security provisions.

The Board also ordered the employer to pay $15,000 in damages, which becomes payable only if the union establishes a future breach of the union security provisions.

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 scheduled Labour Relations Officer meeting and the hearing sine die, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within one year.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to remit benefit contributions and pay proper wages.

The responding party failed to file a response or 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 employer violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay damages for unpaid wages and benefit contributions.

The applicant union requested leave to withdraw its application for certification one day before the scheduled representation vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and permitted the withdrawal pursuant to section 7(8) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board noted that the effect of the withdrawal on any subsequent application filed within one year would be determined at that time under sections 7(9) and 7(9.1) of the Act.

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

The responding party employer disputed the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit, asserting that it sub-contracted all work and that the workers were independent contractors.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and directed a representation vote, noting that the employer's section 8.1 notice was irrelevant given its assertion that there were no employees in the unit.

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

The responding party failed to file a response.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit appeared to be members.

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, alleging the responding party employer failed to remit union dues and benefit contributions.

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

The Board issued consent orders declaring the employer bound by the provincial agreement, confirming the violations, and ordering the employer to pay $33,111.88 in damages and make all future remittances in a timely manner.

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

The responding party objected, arguing that an oral agreement between the parties barred the union from applying for certification.

The Board rejected this argument, noting that parties cannot contract out of the Act.

Finding that the union had established sufficient membership support, the Board directed a representation vote for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The responding party employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the application was barred under section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act because a previous application by a different union had been dismissed within the past year.

The Board had previously directed a representation vote without addressing the objection.

The Board noted its practice of conducting a speedy representation vote before resolving complex legal issues like a section 10(3) bar.

The Board referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule a hearing to determine whether the application must be dismissed under section 10(3).

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

The responding party employer claimed it had no employees in the proposed bargaining unit and filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Act.

The Board found that a section 8.1 notice is irrelevant when the employer asserts there are no employees, and declined to seal the ballot box on that basis.

Finding that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support, the Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote.

The applicant filed two applications for termination of bargaining rights under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

At the scheduled hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant.

After waiting the usual half hour, the Board granted the responding party's request to dismiss the applications.

The Board ordered the destruction of the ballots cast in the representation vote after 90 days, unless a party requests otherwise.

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

The responding party failed to 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 appeared to be members.

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

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

On the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the applications sine die.

The Board noted that the applications would be deemed terminated without further notice if no party requested to proceed within one year.

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

The responding party employer filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Act, asserting that it had no employees in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board held that a section 8.1 notice is irrelevant when the employer asserts there are no employees, as the application would be dismissed on other grounds if true.

The Board found the applicant had the requisite 40% membership support and ordered a representation vote.

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

The responding party employer filed a section 8.1 notice requesting the ballot box be sealed, asserting it had no employees in the proposed bargaining unit and that any workers were employed by subcontractors.

The Board held that a section 8.1 notice is irrelevant when an employer asserts it has no employees, as the application would simply be dismissed if true, rather than for reasons under section 8.1.

Finding that the union appeared to have the requisite forty percent membership support, the Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote.

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 and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral sine die.

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

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement wherein the responding party acknowledged owing $1,563.77.

The Board issued a consent order declaring the responding party bound by the provincial collective agreement, declaring it violated the agreement, and ordering it to pay the outstanding amount forthwith.

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

The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of at least forty percent in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

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 make timely remittances to various health, welfare, and pension funds.

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

The Board issued a consent order declaring the employer bound by the collective agreement, declaring it had violated the agreement, and directing the employer to pay $10,599.58 in outstanding remittances and $741.87 in liquidated damages.