Bram Herlich

Following a previous decision, the employer's counsel advised the Board that cheques had been forwarded to the applicant's counsel for the outstanding amount.

The Board concluded that, subject to any party advising that issues remained outstanding, there was no need for a formal Order to Pay to issue.

The applicant, a university faculty member, filed a complaint alleging that her faculty association breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act regarding her harassment concerns against a colleague.

The Board found that while the applicant's requests for assistance were initially vague, the union eventually understood it was being engaged in its formal capacity.

The union claimed to be pursuing an 'informal process' for several months but could provide no concrete details or evidence of meaningful action.

The Board concluded that the union's failure to meaningfully turn its mind to the merits of the applicant's concerns, while purporting to assist her, constituted a breach of its statutory obligation.

The Board declared a breach of the Act and remained seized on the issue of damages.

Four directors appealed separate orders to pay issued against them under the Employment Standards Act.

Three of the directors failed to appear at the hearing, and their appeals were dismissed.

The remaining director, who appeared self-represented, entered into Minutes of Settlement with the Ministry of Labour regarding the outstanding balance of the orders to pay.

The adjudicator dismissed the remaining director's appeal subject to and in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The union filed applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints against the employer.

On the scheduled hearing date, the parties executed a Memorandum of Settlement.

The Board issued a consent order reflecting the settlement, which directed a representation vote, defined the appropriate bargaining unit, established the voting constituency, and withdrew the unfair labour practice complaints.

The applicant requested an Order to Pay following a previous decision finding that the employer violated the Employment Standards Act by failing to reinstate her after pregnancy leave and terminating her employment.

As the applicant did not make submissions on the quantum, the Board indicated it would issue an Order to Pay in the amount of $40,340.37, as set out in the previous decision, unless further written submissions were received within three weeks.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking to have his discharge grievance advanced to arbitration.

The grievance had previously been settled at mediation, with the applicant signing a settlement that included his resignation and a payment of over $34,000.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, and that the settlement was reasonable given the employer's evidence regarding the alleged patient abuse.

The employer applied to review an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay for unpaid wages owed to a former employee.

The employer did not dispute the wages were owed but requested the proceedings be adjourned or the funds held in trust until related civil litigation involving the parties was resolved, arguing for a potential set-off.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that section 8 of the Employment Standards Act strictly prohibits employers from claiming a set-off against wages.

The Board held there was no legal basis to delay payment to the employee while awaiting the outcome of separate civil proceedings.

The parties executed and filed Minutes of Settlement on the day scheduled for consultation.

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

The applicants, directors of several health centres, appealed under section 58.22(2) of the Employment Standards Act.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing, but the applicants received extremely short notice.

Several applicants wrote to the Board requesting an adjournment.

At the hearing, only counsel for the Ministry of Labour attended.

The Ministry consented to the adjournment request, and the adjudicator adjourned the hearing to a later date.

The applicant applied for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, and the union's withdrawal of its reconsideration request and allegations under the Labour Relations Act, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The applicant filed an application alleging that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by settling his harassment grievance without his consent.

The grievance arose after the employer removed the applicant's truck while he was taking his breaks at home.

The union settled the grievance for $1,700, which was slightly less than the full compensation the applicant demanded.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's decision to settle was entirely reasonable given the circumstances and the likelihood of a less favourable result at arbitration.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for its decision not to advance his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The applicant was discharged for allegedly smoking marijuana on duty, which he denied.

Following an initial consultation, the Board determined it could not finally dispose of the matter based solely on the information provided.

The Board directed that the consultation continue, requiring the union to call evidence subject to cross-examination to establish the basis for its decision not to arbitrate the grievance.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, but not more than 50% of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification and directed the parties' attention to the potential bar on subsequent applications under section 10(3) of the Act.

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 applicants sought to amend their application to add the National Union as a responding party.

The Board granted the amendment, noting its practice of allowing applicants to select their responding parties, though it cautioned that this did not mean the selection was appropriate.

The Board also directed the applicants to provide submissions responding to the locals' motion to dismiss the application as untimely, given that the most recent event occurred more than two years prior to the application.

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

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

The applicant union filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging unfair labour practices and indicating an intent to rely on section 11 for its certification application.

The union requested that the section 96 application be consolidated with the certification application and that the ballot box from the upcoming representation vote be sealed.

The Board directed that the matters be listed to be heard together but denied the request to seal the ballot box, finding no pressing reason to do so.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of maintenance staff at York Central Hospital.

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.