Anthony Brown

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to make an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof and adduced no evidence, the Board dismissed the application.

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

Neither the applicant nor the responding parties appeared at the scheduled hearing.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof and adduced no evidence, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and ordered the disbursement of funds held in trust to the employee and the Government of Ontario.

The responding party union requested an extension of time to file a response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the time for filing a response to July 18, 2001.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of professional engineers employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and directed that a certificate issue.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification.

The responding party employer requested that the Board impose a one-year bar on further applications by the union for the same bargaining unit, arguing that the union was abusing the Board's process by making repeated applications.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the application and declined to impose a bar under subsection 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, finding that the employees' wishes had not been tested and that two applications within eight months did not constitute an abuse of process.

The responding party requested that the application under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act be dismissed because the applicant failed to attend two scheduled pre-hearing meetings.

The Board directed the applicant to inform the Board in writing by a specified date whether he wished to proceed with the application, failing which the matter would be deemed terminated.

The responding party applied for reconsideration of the Board's decision granting the applicant an adjournment.

The responding party argued the Board made inappropriate assumptions about when the applicant learned her former representative could not represent her.

The Board found its original assumptions were not inappropriate and denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant employers sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay a former employee for unpaid overtime and one week's pay in lieu of notice of termination.

The Board found that the employee was not entitled to termination pay because she wilfully neglected to work during her final week after receiving notice of layoff.

However, the Board upheld the order for overtime pay, finding that the employee worked extended hours to complete her duties and the employer, who was aware of this and derived a benefit, took no reasonable steps to prevent her from doing so.

The order to pay was amended accordingly.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union responded that it had assisted the applicant in settling his outstanding grievances against his employer.

The Board directed the applicant to file a reply explaining why the application should proceed in light of the union's assertions, failing which the application would be deemed terminated.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay the claimant one week's pay in lieu of notice of termination.

At the hearing, the applicant requested an adjournment to seek legal counsel, which the Board denied because the applicant had ample notice of the hearing and the case was not complex.

Following the denial of the adjournment, the applicant chose not to introduce any evidence.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof, the Board dismissed the application and affirmed the Officer's order.

The applicant union applied under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A representation vote was scheduled but cancelled after the responding union requested its name be removed from the ballot.

The Board issued a notice of intent to declare the applicant as the bargaining agent for the specified unit, subject to any objections filed by the parties by a specified date.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant union filed an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 in anticipation of a municipal amalgamation scheduled for January 1, 2001.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the parties to file submissions regarding the Board's jurisdiction to commence the process leading to a representation vote before the changeover date has occurred.

The applicant union filed an application which was adjourned sine die by the Board on June 9, 1999, with a condition that it would be deemed terminated if neither party requested it to proceed within one year.

As no such request was made, and the responding party requested dismissal, the Board terminated the application.

The applicant alleged that the responding union failed to pursue the intervenor employer to enforce the terms of an arbitration award.

The union advised the Board that the issue of implementing the award had recommenced before the arbitrator.

The applicant failed to file submissions responding to the union's assertion that the complaint was moot.

The Board dismissed the application as moot, finding that the union had in fact pursued the employer as requested by the applicant.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the hearing of the application on consent of the parties.

The hearing was rescheduled to July 4, 2000, and the panel remained seized of the matter.

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

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support (not less than 40%) in the proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant requested to withdraw his application because he was included as a complainant in another application dealing with the same matter.

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

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.