Bram Herlich

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging the employer engaged in anti-union animus, including suspending the union president, interfering with a lease agreement, and failing to follow collective agreement discipline procedures.

A separate application was filed by employees to terminate the union's bargaining rights, which the union argued was employer-initiated.

The Board found the employer violated sections 70 and 72 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the suspension, lease termination, and discipline administration, awarding damages.

However, the Board dismissed the bad faith bargaining allegations regarding the cessation of union dues collection and service fee increases during a legal strike/lockout position.

The Board also found insufficient evidence of employer initiation or interference in the termination application and ordered the segregated ballots to be counted.

The union filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging the employer engaged in anti-union conduct, including suspending the union president, interfering in a lease agreement, and ignoring collective agreement disciplinary procedures.

A separate application was filed by employees to terminate the union's bargaining rights, which the union argued was employer-initiated.

The Board found the employer violated sections 70 and 72 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the suspension, lease interference, and disciplinary procedures, awarding damages.

However, the Board dismissed the union's allegations that the employer initiated the termination application or bargained in bad faith by altering union dues collection and service fees during a legal strike/lockout period.

The Board ordered the counting of segregated ballots in the termination vote.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

On the scheduled hearing date, the parties executed Minutes of Settlement agreeing to disburse the funds held in trust by the Director.

The Board terminated the proceedings in accordance with section 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant, a school principal, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union for failing to pursue a grievance regarding his transfer to a different school zone.

The union had successfully grieved an earlier transfer, but declined to reconvene the arbitrator or pursue a second grievance after the applicant went on medical leave and subsequently resigned his principalship to become a teacher.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the union's decision not to pursue the grievance was eminently reasonable given the applicant's inability to work and his change in employment status, which eliminated any labour relations purpose for the grievance.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding party to file submissions in response to the applicant's suggestion that a hearing is unnecessary to determine whether students employed during the school vacation period should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada applied for certification to represent employees of LT Greenwin Property Management Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with directions for segregating ballots of disputed sales and clerical staff.

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

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The Board imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an order for termination pay.

The applicant had tendered a written letter of resignation after failing to agree on a new compensation package, hoping it would spur the employer to offer better terms.

The employer accepted the resignation.

The Board found that the applicant did in fact resign, despite his later claims that he did not intend to do so.

As he resigned, he was not entitled to termination pay, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing for medical reasons.

The Ministry of Labour did not oppose the request.

Additionally, it became clear that the affected employee had not received proper notice of the rescheduled hearing.

Given the consent of the Ministry and the lack of notice to the employee, the Board granted the adjournment and rescheduled the hearing.

The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the matters would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed was made within that time.

The applicant employer filed an application alleging that skilled trades employees engaged in an unlawful strike by concertedly refusing to work overtime.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order declaring that the concerted refusal to perform overtime constituted an unlawful strike and directed the responding parties to cease and desist from such activities.

The Board also ordered the posting of the decision in the workplace.

The CAW-Canada filed an application for certification, and SEIU Local 663 filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer and CAW-Canada.

On the day scheduled for hearing, the parties executed Minutes of Settlement resolving their disputes.

Pursuant to the settlement, the parties agreed that a collective agreement subsisted between SEIU Local 663 and the employer, and both the application for certification and the unfair labour practice complaint were withdrawn by leave of the Board.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a June 19, 2000 decision dismissing her application, claiming a factual background document was filed but missing from the file.

The Vice-Chair granted the applicant the benefit of the doubt, revoked the previous dismissal, and directed the applicant to file further submissions explaining the delay and responding to the union's factual assertions before deciding whether to advance the matter to a consultation.

The applicant, a former restaurant cook, sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying his claim for unpaid overtime.

Both parties failed to maintain reliable records of hours worked and wages paid, which were handled strictly in cash.

The Board found the applicant's claim of over 250 overtime hours exaggerated and the employer's claim of providing lieu time implausible.

The Board determined the applicant worked 120 overtime hours at a regular rate of $9.00 per hour, and ordered the employer to pay the $3.50 per hour shortfall plus vacation pay, totaling $436.80.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the responding party trade union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, seemingly in relation to a warning letter he received from his employer.

The Board found the application to be incoherent and misconceived, noting that section 74 is a means to complain about a union's conduct, not to challenge an employer's discipline or management.

The Board dismissed the application without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a proper application clearly identifying the union's alleged unlawful conduct.

The applicant employer sought an adjournment of a hearing to review an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay, citing the President's pre-existing business commitment out of the country.

The Board granted the adjournment on the condition that the applicant reimburse the employee $300 for costs associated with his attendance at the scheduled hearing.

If the applicant fails to pay within one week, the adjournment request and the application will be deemed dismissed.

The applicant was directed to provide submissions explaining why her application should not be dismissed as an attempt to relitigate a previously disposed complaint.

Despite the Board's decision being sent to her and faxed to her representative, no submissions were received within the two-week deadline.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant sought a review under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant and the responding party executed a settlement.

Having regard to the settlement and section 69.1(5) of the Act, the Board terminated the application for review.

The applicant, a bargaining unit president, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for failing to advance his grievance to arbitration.

The grievance concerned a disciplinary letter placed on his file by the employer for unauthorized use of photocopying facilities.

The union had negotiated a settlement that replaced the original letter with a less severe version and subsequently withdrew the grievance.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's decision not to advance the grievance to arbitration was reasonable given the minor nature of the discipline, the applicant's prior history, and the union's success in mitigating the letter's contents.

The applicant, a security guard, was discharged from his employment and denied termination and severance pay on the basis of alleged wilful misconduct.

The employer cited three incidents: mishandling a potential crime scene, falsifying a log entry, and playing computer games on duty.

The Board found that the mishandling of the scene was at most an error in judgment, the falsification of the log entry was not proven, and the evidence was insufficient to establish that the applicant played computer games after being directed not to.

The Board concluded the employer failed to establish wilful misconduct and held the applicant was entitled to pay in lieu of notice and severance pay.