Anthony Brown

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the disbursement of the $21,572.42 held in trust by the Director in accordance with the settlement terms, and terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant filed an application under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging she was suspended and constructively dismissed as a reprisal for notifying the Ministry of Labour about safety concerns.

At the commencement of the hearing, the responding party moved to dismiss the application on the ground of undue delay, noting an eleven-month gap between the suspension and the filing of the application.

The applicant claimed she was unaware of her rights and was pursuing other claims.

The Board found the applicant failed to provide acceptable reasons for the delay and that the delay would prejudice the employer.

The application was dismissed for undue delay.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to communicate with him and by deciding at the last minute not to dispute his dismissal grievance at the Grievance Settlement Board.

The applicant's employment had been terminated after he refused to sign an employment contract with a new service provider following the contracting out of his department.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union's decision not to pursue the grievance was based on prior settlement agreements and legal advice, and was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or made in bad faith.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay $40,000 in wages against his former employer and its directors.

The employer was bankrupt.

The Board held that under section 68(2) of the Employment Standards Act, it lacked jurisdiction to review a refusal to issue an order against directors.

Furthermore, the Board could not issue an order against the bankrupt employer due to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, and because the applicant had already settled his claim with the Trustee in Bankruptcy.

The application was dismissed.

The Board heard two related employment standards applications which were adjourned to allow the parties to pursue a settlement.

Having received no update, the Board directed the parties to advise within ten days whether they wished to schedule another hearing day, failing which the applications may be terminated.

The applicant union filed an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 respecting bargaining rights following the amalgamation of the Hamilton Public Library Board.

The Board noted that the parties had agreed on many items and appointed a Board Officer to assist in resolving the remaining disputes.

The Board directed the parties to advise it of the status of their discussions by June 15, 2001, and ordered the employer to post copies of the decision in the workplace.

The applicant union applied to enforce the terms of a settlement under subsection 96(7) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

At the hearing, the responding party agreed to send a cheque to the applicant by a specified date, and the applicant was to advise the Board if it was not received.

Having not heard from the applicant, the Board terminated the application and closed the file.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application against the City of Toronto.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union and the employer requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the applicant's main complaints were directed at the employer, and the allegations against the union lacked sufficient detail to establish arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

Following a consultation, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that it did not require viva voce evidence to decide the application.

The Board indicated that a decision would be issued in due course.

The applicant union brought an application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 following the transfer of water works from the Midland Public Utilities Commission to the Town of Midland.

The parties agreed that a sale of business occurred and employees were intermingled.

The Board ordered a representation vote to allow employees to choose between the applicant and the intervenor union.

The Board declined to make an order regarding seniority integration, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 69 and noting that such an order would require a valid application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The applicant requested an extension of the thirty-day period mentioned in a previous Board decision to seek legal advice for filing a new application.

The Board denied the request, finding that the thirty-day period (which excludes weekends and holidays) provided ample time to seek legal advice and file a new application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision finding that the application was not barred and directed the Manager of Field Services to arrange for the counting of the ballots forthwith.

Board Member J. A. Rundle reserved their decision.

The applicant trade union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging violations of sections 70, 72, and 76.

At the end of the first day of the hearing, the Board was verbally advised that the application had been withdrawn.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the application to close the matter.

The applicant municipality brought an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 2597, the Board declared that the union represents the employees in the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant sought clarification on whether an upcoming hearing would be reserved exclusively for argument on the existence of a settlement agreement or if it would also address the merits of the case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the parties to come prepared to present their evidence and argument on the merits of the case at the scheduled hearing.

The applicant trade union applied for certification but subsequently requested to withdraw or dismiss its application under section 8.1(5)[7] of the Labour Relations Act, acknowledging it did not have the requisite 40 per cent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The responding party employer objected to a withdrawal without a one-year bar and costs.

The Board found that the conditions for dismissal under section 8.1(5)[7] were met, as the applicant failed to provide evidence of 40 per cent membership support.

The Board dismissed the application, noting that section 10(4) applies.

The applicant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by acting in bad faith and arbitrarily when it clarified the terms of a memorandum of settlement following a plant closure.

The settlement provided options for laid-off employees, including severance or filling vacancies created by attrition.

The applicant argued he should have been allowed to bump into the hospital bargaining unit based on seniority.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the union misled its members or acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in interpreting the settlement or refusing to file a grievance.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing his grievance regarding sick benefits.

The union requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing because it failed to disclose sufficient details.

The Board found that the applicant's assertions were vague and sketchy, lacking concrete allegations of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The Board terminated the application without prejudice, allowing the applicant 30 days to file a new application with sufficient details and requested remedies.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application following the filing of Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.