Anthony Brown

The responding party employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision granting the applicant union leave to withdraw its certification application prior to a representation vote.

The employer argued it was denied an opportunity to make submissions on conditions or a bar to re-applying under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board declined to hear the request for reconsideration, noting that the employer could raise its procedural and substantive arguments at the upcoming hearing for the union's second certification application.

The applicant, a former part-time district supervisor, alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

He claimed the union treated part-time supervisors unfairly by agreeing to a reclassification that reduced their hourly rate and by failing to secure enhanced severance pay when their jobs were contracted out.

He also complained that the union refused to process his grievances regarding the reclassification, scheduling, and severance pay.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union made a difficult but justifiable collective bargaining decision to save part-time positions and that its refusal to process the grievances was based on a reasoned legal opinion, not arbitrary or bad faith conduct.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice application alleging violations of sections 72 and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking remedies including the right to union representation at supervisory meetings and a determination on whether a disciplinary suspension was for just cause.

The Board clarified its remedial jurisdiction, noting it cannot amend the collective agreement or determine just cause.

The Board declined to dismiss the application for lack of a prima facie case based solely on the pleadings and declined to defer the matter to arbitration, directing that the application be scheduled for a hearing.

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

The employer and the respondent employee entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to the disbursement of funds held in trust by the Director.

The Board ordered the funds disbursed in accordance with the settlement and terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application following the parties' resolution of issues in a related Board file.

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

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, but not more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

As a result, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification and cancelled the previously set meeting and hearing dates.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by failing to advance his termination grievance to arbitration.

The union and the intervenor employer sought to have the application dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case and for undue delay regarding events from 1994 and 1996.

The Board deferred its decision on dismissal, directing the applicant to file a reply to the submissions and explain the delay before determining whether to schedule a consultation or dismiss the application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision regarding hiring hall referrals.

The Board reviewed its well-established principles for reconsideration under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, noting that it will generally only reconsider a decision if there is new evidence that could not have been obtained previously by reasonable diligence, or if a party wishes to make representations they had no opportunity to raise previously.

Finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue the matter and re-iterate assertions made at the original consultation, the Board declined to reconsider its decision.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file a reply.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to May 7, 2001.

Following a settlement between the parties, the Board issued a decision to determine the final calculation of amounts owed to the employee.

The applicant provided recalculated deductions for statutory amounts and the Family Support Plan.

The Board ordered the applicant to remit the difference of $877.91 directly to the employee, and directed the Director of Employment Standards to remit the previously specified amounts.

The applicant sought a review of an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The parties subsequently filed Minutes of Settlement withdrawing the application and agreeing to the distribution of funds held in trust.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the Director of Employment Standards to disburse the funds in accordance with the settlement and terminated the application.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union, alleging it failed to assist her in obtaining Canada Pension Plan benefits and severance pay following her mandatory retirement at age 65.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the remedies sought regarding CPP and severance pay were outside its jurisdiction, and the applicant failed to plead any facts establishing a prima facie case that the union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.

The applicant, IAW Canada, sought to withdraw its application against Beaumen Waste Management Systems Limited.

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

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The parties jointly requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing pending settlement discussions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification prior to a scheduled representation vote.

The responding party requested that a bar be imposed preventing the applicant from reapplying for certification.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to impose a bar, finding that the applicant withdrew after learning the size of the proposed bargaining unit via a section 8.1 notice, and there was no evidence of a deliberate attempt to abuse the Board's process.

The application was withdrawn with leave.

In a reference from the Minister of Labour under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act, counsel for organizations seeking intervenor status requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the adjournment request, stating it would not adjourn the hearing without the consent of the applicant and responding party.

The Board noted that any person or organization wishing to apply for leave to intervene could speak to the matter at the hearing.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union requested particulars.

The Board reviewed the application and found it contained voluminous allegations against the employer but no material facts explaining how the union violated its duty.

The Board exercised its discretion to terminate the application without prejudice, allowing the applicant 30 days to file a new application that complies with the Board's Rules of Procedure by setting out detailed material facts regarding the union's conduct.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than 50% 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 dismissed the application.

The Board directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act regarding future applications.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding a grievance over his August 1998 dismissal.

The union requested that the application be dismissed for undue delay, as the key events occurred over two years prior to the application.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions explaining the delay of approximately two years and four months, noting that without a satisfactory explanation, the application may be dismissed.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

Counsel for the employer advised the Board that it did not receive a complete copy of the application.

The Board directed the applicant to serve a complete copy of the application on the union and the employer by April 27, 2001, failing which the application would be deemed terminated.