Anthony Brown

The applicant employer sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay the responding party employee termination and vacation pay.

The employer argued the employee was not entitled to termination pay due to wilful misconduct and disobedience, specifically his refusal to return to a job site and follow supervisors' instructions.

The Board found that the employee wilfully disobeyed instructions to attend the office and a job site, constituting wilful misconduct and disobedience under the Employment Standards Act.

The application for review was granted, and the order to pay was amended to revoke the termination pay.

The applicant, Teamsters Local Union 938, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Phil Dennis Enterprises Limited.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the responding union breached its duty of fair representation in handling a discharge grievance.

At a consultation, the Board dismissed the union's preliminary objection that the application should be dismissed for undue delay, finding the delay from August 1998 to May 1999 was not excessive.

The Board agreed with the union that the applicant's allegations regarding a history of harassment by the employer were not sufficiently particularized and ordered the applicant to file a precise statement of material facts.

The matter was adjourned for continuation.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Based on Minutes of Settlement, the Board ordered a new representation vote for a constituency of stationary engineers and helpers employed by the responding party.

The vote was scheduled for February 4, 2000, and the Board set out voter eligibility and posting requirements.

The applicant sought to withdraw his application against the responding parties.

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

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of Parisco Limited.

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

The Board also ordered the destruction of the ballots after 30 days and cancelled previously set meeting and hearing dates.

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

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.

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

The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior Board decision that dismissed her duty of fair representation complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board reviewed the principles for reconsideration, noting that it generally requires new evidence that could not have been previously obtained or the raising of significant policy issues.

Finding that the applicant merely reiterated her previous submissions without providing new material information or facts showing arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, the Board dismissed the application for reconsideration.

The applicant union delivered an application for certification to the responding party but failed to file it with the Board within the required two-day period under Rule 14 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

As a result of the late filing, the Board dismissed the application in accordance with Rule 15.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of Destiny Manor Addiction Treatment Services.

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

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

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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

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

The Board directed a representation vote to be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency, with disputed positions to cast segregated ballots.

The applicants applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

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

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 majority of the Board found that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support for a representation vote to be held and counted.

The Board directed a representation vote for the proposed voting constituency, with disputed positions to cast segregated ballots.

A dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The intervenor union currently represents the employees in separate full-time and part-time bargaining units.

Finding the application timely and supported by sufficient membership evidence, the Board directed a representation vote.

The Board ordered that ballots cast by full-time and part-time employees be segregated and counted separately.

The Board declined the intervenor's request to seal the ballot box pending allegations of improper employer involvement.

The applicant union withdrew its application for certification prior to a representation vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board accepted the withdrawal and declined to impose conditions or a bar on future applications pursuant to subsections 7(8) and 7(9) of the Act.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the scheduled consultation, the responding party advised the Board that the applicant had signed minutes of settlement agreeing to withdraw his termination grievance and any other action.

The Board issued an endorsement requiring the applicant to provide reasons why the matter should not be deemed withdrawn.

The applicant acknowledged the settlement, and the Board deemed the application withdrawn with leave.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, claiming the responding party failed to accommodate his disability following a workplace injury.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions showing a connection between his allegations and the Act.

Finding no facts pleaded that would establish a reprisal or other violation of the Act, the Board dismissed the application without a hearing.

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

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.