Anthony Brown

The applicant sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for unpaid wages and termination pay.

The Board found that the Order should have been made against the corporate employer, not the individual applicant personally.

The Board further held that no termination pay was owed because the employment contracts were frustrated when a third party unilaterally took possession of the gas bar where the claimants worked.

The corporate employer agreed it owed the claimants for unpaid wages.

Given the applicant's substantial success and lack of prior notice of the claim, the Board ordered the return of the administration fee.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay termination pay to a former chef, arguing he was dismissed for wilful misconduct after allegedly taking food from the premises without permission.

The employer relied on video surveillance showing the employee leaving with a box and a foil-wrapped package.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found insufficient evidence that the employee's actions constituted wilful misconduct, noting the employer failed to prove the employee lacked permission for the box or that the foil package contained company property.

The application was dismissed and the termination pay was ordered to be paid to the employee.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The applicant had been terminated for failing to call in when absent, and the union was unable to prove his allegations of reprisal at arbitration.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration application, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue the matter and had not adduced any new evidence or raised new policy considerations that would warrant reconsideration.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further applications for certification by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act in its handling and settlement of his grievances, including a dismissal grievance.

The applicant had signed a settlement agreement resolving all grievances in exchange for $7,500 and a resignation, but later claimed the union failed to advise him that resigning would prejudice his right to reinstatement under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, and noting that the union's duty under section 74 does not extend to advising members on or representing them in WSIB matters.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding university.

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

The applicant filed complaints alleging that the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by settling his grievances without his agreement and failing to respond to his inquiries.

The Board previously directed the applicant to explain why he claimed he had not heard from the union, despite correspondence showing the union had explained the settlement to him.

The applicant blamed a Labour Relations Officer for the misunderstanding.

The Board found the explanation unsatisfactory and noted that a union is not obligated to take instructions from an applicant regarding grievance settlements.

Exercising its discretion under section 96, the Board dismissed the applications, finding no labour relations purpose in proceeding further.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging he was improperly removed as the managerial representative on the Joint Health and Safety Committee.

The applicant was no longer employed by the responding party and sought only a declaration, not reinstatement.

The Board exercised its discretion under subsection 50(3) of the Act to decline to inquire further into the matter, finding there was little purpose in hearing the complaint when no meaningful remedy could be ordered.

The application was dismissed.

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.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the union as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for security guards employed by the responding party at the Nanticoke Generating Station.

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 union.

A certificate was ordered to issue.

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

Following a representation vote in which 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.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of Operation Springboard in Toronto.

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

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 statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union sought to adjourn the hearing of its certification application so it could be heard together with a newly filed section 96 unfair labour practice application concerning the termination of an employee.

The responding party employer opposed the adjournment, arguing the matters should be heard separately and it needed time to prepare.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding the applicant's explanation for the late filing reasonable and noting an overlap in evidence and witnesses between the pre-vote and post-vote events.

The Board directed the matters be scheduled together.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant applied to terminate the responding party's bargaining rights.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in opposition to the responding party, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The Board ordered the destruction of the ballots after 30 days and directed the employer to post the decision.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The responding party, Toronto Symphony Orchestra, requested an order directing the applicant union to produce a copy of its constitution and by-laws.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the applicant to either provide the documents prior to the scheduled hearing or bring copies to the hearing, at which time the Board would consider the request for production.