Bram Herlich

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board summarily dismissed the application because the applicant left the narrative and remedy sections blank, failing to establish any arguable violation of the Act.

The only information provided was that a grievance had proceeded to arbitration and was settled by Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant union requested that the Board reconvene a certification hearing to address disputes that arose during collective bargaining regarding the exclusion of an individual from the bargaining unit and the assignment of managerial responsibilities.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the certification proceedings were concluded and that the parties must pursue other legal avenues to resolve disputes over the interpretation of the agreed-upon bargaining unit description or the status of specific individuals.

The applicant appealed an inspector's refusal to issue an order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act regarding the production and maintenance of electrical drawings.

At the hearing, the parties clarified the scope of the appeal and the Ministry agreed to arrange meetings between the inspector, the Joint Health and Safety Committee, and the concerned worker.

On consent, the Board adjourned the matter sine die for up to one year.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing of an application regarding an Order to Pay to July 31, 2000.

The Ministry of Labour undertook to provide the officer's narrative report and the names and addresses of affected employees.

The Adjudicator/Referee directed the Registrar to provide notice of the rescheduled hearing to the parties and the nine affected employees.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing of an application regarding an Order to Pay to July 31, 2000.

The Ministry of Labour undertook to provide the officer's narrative report and the names and addresses of affected employees.

The Adjudicator/Referee directed the Registrar to furnish notice of the rescheduled hearing to the parties and the nine affected employees.

The applicants sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer regarding a former employee who worked for them for seven weeks.

The officer found the employee worked 52 to 61 hours per week, but the applicants testified she worked approximately 5 hours per weekday plus some babysitting.

The employee did not appear at the hearing.

The Board accepted the applicants' uncontradicted evidence that the employee worked 187 hours total and was compensated at a permitted rate.

The Board amended the order to reflect only $65.87 owed in unpaid vacation pay, directing the balance of funds held in trust to be returned to the applicants.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board noted that the applicant had previously filed a similar application based on virtually identical facts and legal theories, which was dismissed, and a subsequent request for reconsideration was also dismissed.

The Board directed the applicant to show cause within two weeks why the current application should not be dismissed as an attempt to relitigate a matter already disposed of.

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

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

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay.

The applicant failed to pay the ordered amount to the Director in trust or provide an irrevocable letter of credit within the 45-day statutory time limit, as required by section 68(7) of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board dismissed the application for non-compliance.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

Under section 68(7) of the Employment Standards Act, an application for review is not properly made unless the applicant pays the ordered amount to the Director in trust or provides an irrevocable letter of credit within the 45-day time limit.

The applicant failed to provide proof of payment or request an extension of time.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to process his grievances regarding cross-bumping rights following a layoff.

The union moved to dismiss the application for failing to disclose an arguable case and for undue delay.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the applicant failed to identify any substantive provision in the collective agreement supporting his claim and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the two-year delay in bringing the application.

The applicant applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order for termination pay.

The applicant, a restaurant manager of ten years, claimed she was laid off, while the employer asserted she had quit.

The Board found that during a meeting, the employer signed a Record of Employment indicating a layoff and issued a cheque for severance, which was subsequently stopped.

The Board concluded that the applicant was laid off and ordered the employer to pay 8 weeks' pay in lieu of notice plus vacation pay.

The applicant employer failed to appear at the scheduled hearing to review an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

On motion by counsel for the Ministry of Labour, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and affirmed the order, directing the payout of trust monies to the employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On agreement of the parties, the Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the union failed to process his grievance regarding tuition fee reimbursement in a timely manner.

The Board held a consultation and found that all claims related to the grievance had already been satisfied.

The Board concluded that no labour relations purpose would be served by further processing the grievance and found no evidence of discriminatory or special treatment by the union.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to terminate 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 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 applicant, an individual employee, filed an application under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a determination that he exercised managerial functions and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The employer and the union both asserted that the applicant was a bargaining unit employee and lacked standing to bring the application.

The Board dismissed the application, reaffirming established jurisprudence that section 114(2) is intended only to resolve disputes between the immediate parties to the collective bargaining relationship (the employer and the union), and is not available to individual employees questioning their own status.

The applicant union filed an application for certification, which the intervenor union claimed was untimely due to an existing collective agreement.

At the scheduled hearing to determine timeliness, the responding party employer did not appear.

The attending parties agreed to adjourn the matter to ensure the employer's attendance.

The Board granted the adjournment and rescheduled the hearing.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent of the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with segregated ballots for disputed 'quality employee' positions.

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 gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant for the purposes of section 8.1 and directed that a representation vote be taken, with any ballots from disputed classifications to be segregated.