Anthony Brown

The applicant brought an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die, noting that it would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within one year.

Following a July 2000 decision awarding the claimant $758.00 from trust, the applicant employer refused to provide required information regarding statutory deductions.

The Ministry of Labour proposed a disbursement schedule in writing, to which no parties replied.

The Board adopted the Ministry's proposal and ordered the funds held in trust to be disbursed to the employee, the employer, and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent 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 certified the applicant.

A certificate was ordered to issue for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant sought to withdraw his application against the respondents.

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

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor, the Transportation Communications Union, by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and issued the requested declaration.

The applicant, a former teacher dismissed by the predecessor school board, filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging that the school board's decision to ban him from its property was in retaliation for his having commenced proceedings under the Labour Relations Act.

The school board brought preliminary motions to dismiss the applications without a hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the applications, finding they had little chance of success and that the primary remedy sought—allowing the applicant to operate an after-school skipping program on school property—was inappropriate given the school board's statutory duty to ensure student safety.

The applicant sought a review of a refusal to issue an order to pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer, agreeing to a payment of $2,000 without admission of liability.

As the settlement disposed of all issues in dispute, the Board terminated the application in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant union and the responding party municipality, which was newly created through amalgamation, sought an order directing a representation vote for certain employees.

The Board noted that the amalgamation would take effect on January 1, 2001, and the legal effect of a vote prior to that date was unclear.

However, upon the agreement and request of the parties, the Board issued an interim order under subsection 37(7) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, directing that a representation vote be held on October 19, 2000, for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior decision striking certain responding parties and requested an extension of time to file written submissions on whether another forum was more appropriate.

The Board noted the reconsideration application was not filed in accordance with its Rules of Procedure.

The Board declined to extend the timeline solely on the basis of the purported reconsideration application, but scheduled a hearing to deal with all preliminary issues since no party had made submissions on the forum issue.

The applicant, Expeditors Canada Inc., sought to withdraw its application against Lesley Wroe and the Ministry of Labour.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the Registrar to schedule the matter for a consultation after no submissions were received following a previous direction.

The responding party was given until October 6, 2000, to file a response.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union approximately 42 months after his termination.

The union and the intervenor employer sought to dismiss the application on the basis of undue delay.

The Board found that while the applicant experienced personal difficulties, he was able to attend school and file a human rights complaint during the delay period.

The Board concluded that the delay was extraordinary and unexplained, and dismissed the application.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for the employees of the responding party.

As there were no outstanding representations before the Board regarding any remaining issues in dispute, the application was dismissed.

The Board imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit and ordered the destruction of the ballots cast in the representation vote.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration.

The applicant union filed an application against the responding party hotel.

The parties reached an agreement intended to be a settlement pursuant to subsection 96(7) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Having regard to this agreement, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay termination pay to a former employee, a hair stylist.

The employer alleged that the employee had quit or, alternatively, was guilty of wilful misconduct by serving the salon's customers out of her apartment.

The employee claimed she was constructively dismissed after being falsely accused of stealing customers and told to leave, despite a subsequent offer to return to work.

The Board found insufficient evidence that the employee was operating a competing business or taking customers.

The Board concluded that the employer's unfounded accusations damaged the employment relationship, making it unreasonable for the employee to return to work.

The employee was found to have been constructively dismissed without notice, and the wilful misconduct exception did not apply.

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

The applicant union sought certification to represent employees at the responding party's nursing home.

The intervenor union requested that the issuance of the certificate be postponed pending the disposition of a contempt motion in Superior Court and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.

The Board declined to postpone the issuance, noting that previous panels had already rejected similar arguments and that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 directs the Board to certify the applicant when more than 50 percent of ballots are cast in its favour.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

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

The union asserted that the application did not disclose a prima facie case and lacked specific allegations.

The Board found that the application did not comply with the Rules of Procedure requiring material facts.

The Board directed the applicant to file detailed submissions setting out the material facts, failing which the application would be deemed terminated.

The employer was struck as a responding party.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Board's decision to dismiss his application for review under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The original application was dismissed because the applicant failed to appear for the hearing after his request for an adjournment was denied.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant provided no new material evidence or grounds to justify reconsidering the final decision.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

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