Anthony Brown

The applicant sought to withdraw the application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant trade union filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (duty of fair representation) against the responding party.

The Board noted that section 74 applies to the representation of employees in a bargaining unit by a trade union, whereas the applicant is a trade union, not an employee.

The Board directed that if any individual employees wish to pursue the matter, they must file the required information by March 3, 2000, failing which the application will be deemed terminated.

The applicant requested clarification of the Board's decision dismissing her request for reconsideration regarding an alleged violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by the responding union.

The Board advised the applicant that the matter is now closed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board alleging the responding employer failed to make required remittances under the collective agreement.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a memorandum of agreement.

The Board issued a consent order declaring the employer bound by the collective agreement, finding a violation for unpaid remittances in October and November 1999, and ordering the employer to pay $57,937.14 in damages.

The applicant, Christian Labour Association of Canada, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Climac Residential Services Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant union, Local 220, applied for certification.

The membership evidence submitted showed applications for membership in the international union, rather than the specific local union.

The Board found that evidence of membership in an international union is not generally accepted as evidence of membership in a local.

As the applicant failed to comply with subsection 7(13) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the application for certification was dismissed.

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 applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and directed that a certificate issue.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application against the responding party union.

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

The applicant sought to withdraw the application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act, but the Board held that section 8.1 does not apply to construction industry certification applications and declined to seal the ballot box.

The Board found the applicant's proposed bargaining unit to be appropriate and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The responding party union requested reconsideration of the Board's decision not to seal the ballot box in a representation vote for a termination application.

The union argued the application was untimely.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no reason to change its original decision.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application was timely and that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

Consequently, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

The applicant, Service Employees International Union, Local 220, applied for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application because the submitted membership evidence was for the international union rather than the local union.

The Board found that the applicant failed to comply with subsection 7(13) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as evidence of membership in an international union is not generally accepted as evidence of membership in a local.

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

The responding party disputed the proposed bargaining unit and the estimated number of employees, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with any disputed ballots to be segregated.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

Based on the application material, the Board found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the laboratory technicians of the responding party.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the College of Nurses.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support and ordered a representation vote.

Due to the dispute over the appropriate bargaining unit, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed and any ballots cast by individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

The applicant employer sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay severance to an employee who was forced to retire at age 65.

The employer argued that mandatory retirement at age 65 was an implied term of the employment contract and did not constitute a 'termination' under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board found that the employee did not voluntarily resign and was unilaterally terminated by the employer.

Because the employee was retired without an unreduced pension benefit, the Board held that the retirement constituted a termination under section 58 of the Act, entitling the employee to severance pay.

The application for review was dismissed.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The responding party union argued the application was untimely based on the execution date of the collective agreement.

The Board found that at least forty percent of employees in the bargaining unit expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The Board directed a representation vote and declined the union's request to seal the ballot box pending a final determination on timeliness.

The applicant employer sought a review of an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for unpaid public holiday pay and termination pay.

The employer argued the employee was not entitled to public holiday pay because she was on temporary lay-off during the holidays, and that she was not terminated but laid off.

The Board found that the employee did not fall within any of the exceptions in section 25(1) of the Employment Standards Act and was therefore entitled to public holiday pay.

The Board also found that the employee was terminated, not laid off, and upheld the order to pay.

OPSEU and individual former Crown employees filed applications alleging that the responding municipalities violated O. Reg. 10/99 by failing to properly credit their seniority after they were transferred to municipal employment.

The intervenor union (CUPE) and the responding municipalities raised preliminary objections regarding the Board's jurisdiction and the applicants' standing.

The Board held that it lacked inherent jurisdiction to enforce the regulation directly, as the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act does not provide a mechanism for individual employees or their former bargaining agent to apply to the Board for such redress.

The applications were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.