Anthony Brown

The applicant union and responding union 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 neither party requests to proceed.

The applicant sought an adjournment of her Employment Standards Act review hearing because she suffered an anxiety attack and was unable to attend.

The responding employer opposed the adjournment, noting it had flown a witness from the USA and was ready to proceed.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting the applicant's history of anxiety, but directed her to provide a medical note confirming her incapacity and ordered the parties to exchange documents prior to the rescheduled hearing.

The Board issued a procedural direction regarding two applications.

The Board ordered that the application in Board File No. 0631-01-U will be heard by way of a hearing rather than a consultation.

The application in Board File No. 1117-01-U may be heard by way of hearing or consultation, at the discretion of the assigned panel.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that declined to inquire into his section 74 complaint due to undue delay.

The applicant argued that his delay was caused by unfamiliarity with the law, reliance on professionals, and a language barrier, and alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias because the decision was issued one day after a union reminder letter.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to reargue points already decided, that prejudice to the union was inherent in the delay, and that the timing of the decision did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of Hunter Drums Ltd. The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least 40% of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on December 18 and 19, 2001.

Although the responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees, it agreed that the ballots should be counted, and the Board found the numerical difference insignificant.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties on the appropriate bargaining unit and finding that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent dependent contractors and drivers of the responding party.

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

The responding party disputed the bargaining unit description and the number of employees, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with ballots from individuals claiming to fall within the responding party's proposed bargaining unit to be segregated and counted separately.

The applicant, an occasional teacher, filed a complaint alleging that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, after the union withdrew a grievance concerning his termination.

The union sought to have the application dismissed without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the applicant's allegations, even if true, did not establish that the union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.

The union had investigated the grievance, obtained a legal opinion, and made a reasoned decision not to proceed.

The application was dismissed.

The responding party employer objected to the location of the polls for a representation vote in an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the poll locations suitable and declined to change them.

The employer applied for a declaration that the responding party union abandoned its bargaining rights, or alternatively for a declaration under section 65(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had virtually no contact with the employer for almost three years after certification before giving notice to bargain.

The union subsequently consented to a declaration of abandonment.

The Board declared that the union abandoned its bargaining rights.

The applicants, Teamsters Local Union No. 419 and Raymond Boston, requested to withdraw their applications against Newcastle Logistics Corporation.

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

In an application for termination of bargaining rights, a representation vote resulted in an 8-7 vote against the union, with one segregated ballot remaining.

The applicant and employer argued the ballot should be counted as the employee consented, while the union argued counting it would violate ballot secrecy.

The Board held that ensuring the secrecy of the ballot by holding a second vote outweighed the considerations argued by the applicant and employer, and directed a second representation vote.

The applicants sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for alleged unpaid wages.

The primary applicant claimed he was hired as a manager to set up a lawn care franchise and sought over $14,000 in unpaid wages.

The responding party denied the existence of an employment relationship, asserting the applicant was only a prospective hire who had not completed the necessary paperwork or vetting.

The Board found overwhelming evidence militating against an employment relationship, noting the absence of a written contract, paycheques, tax forms, or direct supervision.

The application was dismissed as the applicants failed to establish they were employees under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a ratification vote for a collective agreement settled by interest arbitration.

The applicant later sought to amend the pleadings to argue the agreement to arbitrate was invalid.

The Board declined to inquire further into the application, finding the amended pleadings were filed with undue delay and expanded the scope of the original complaint.

The Board also noted the union had since been decertified, rendering the requested relief moot and serving no labour relations purpose.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application prior to the representation vote, with the agreement of the responding party employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and ordered the return of the membership evidence to the applicant.

The applicant sought to withdraw an application for termination of bargaining rights after a representation vote in which no employee cast a ballot.

The applicant requested the withdrawal be 'without prejudice' to reserve the right to raise the facts of the vote in future proceedings.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the application, noting that the admissibility of the factual circumstances in any subsequent proceeding would be determined at that time.

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

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof and presented no evidence, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and affirmed the Order to Pay, directing the funds held in trust to be paid to the claimant and the Government of Ontario.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for vacation and termination pay owed to a former employee.

The Ministry of Labour argued the application was untimely, having been filed more than 45 days after the Order was issued.

The Board found that the Order was delivered to the applicant's address and signed for, and that the applicant also received a follow-up letter but failed to act promptly.

The Board declined to extend the time for filing, noting the significant delay and lack of extenuating circumstances.

The application was dismissed as untimely and the Order to Pay was affirmed.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

Previously set meeting and hearing dates were cancelled.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A consultation was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear.

The responding party requested that the application be dismissed.

As the applicant bears the onus of proving the complaint, the Board dismissed the application.