Bram Herlich

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The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 employer and respondent union filed a joint application for the Board's consent to the early termination of their collective agreement.

Notice of the application was posted, and no objections were filed by any affected employees.

The Board granted consent to the early termination, noting that the current agreement would expire on November 4, 2001, and a newly ratified agreement would take effect on November 5, 2001.

The applicant applied to decertify the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were 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with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor hospital.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of service employees at Brockville General Hospital.

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 granted certification and ordered a certificate to issue.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, 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, with segregated ballots for disputed positions including maintenance, truck drivers, group leaders, and distribution coordinators.

In a certification application and related unfair labour practice complaint, the employer argued that the union had abandoned its challenges to the managerial status of four individuals by filing its submissions one business day late.

The Board exercised its discretion to relieve against the strict application of the Rules, finding the delay was marginal, caused no prejudice, and the union's position had been clear throughout.

The Board also ruled that the two applications would be heard together and directed the employer to proceed first in calling its evidence on all issues.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application regarding an Order to Pay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application, removing any obstacle preventing the Director from paying out funds currently held in trust pursuant to the Order to Pay.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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

During a consultation, the parties executed a Memorandum of Settlement.

Having regard to the agreement, the application was withdrawn by leave of the Board.

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

The union requested the application be dismissed without a hearing due to a lack of particulars.

The Board directed the applicant to file a brief written statement outlining the material facts relied upon, after which the union would have an opportunity to reply and renew its request for dismissal.

The applicant's representative advised the Board that the parties had reached a settlement prior to the scheduled hearing.

The Board ordered the matter terminated.

The applicant employer sought to review an Order to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act.

The affected employee had concurrently pursued a wrongful dismissal action in court, which was ultimately successful, and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.

The employee subsequently confirmed he no longer asserted any claim to the monies held in trust for the ESA claim.

Given the circumstances and the positions of the parties, the adjudicator vacated the Order to Pay and directed the return of all trust monies to the applicant.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union after resigning from his employment.

He alleged the union failed to support him regarding workplace discipline and a subsequent demotion.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had withdrawn an earlier grievance and failed to seek the union's assistance for several months despite ongoing employment issues.

When he finally approached the union, it was to advance an unmeritorious claim for higher pay while performing lower-rated work.

The Board concluded the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

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

At the scheduled hearing, the applicant failed to appear.

After waiting the customary half hour, the Board proceeded in the applicant's absence.

Upon motion by the responding parties, the Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for refusing to advance his grievance to arbitration.

The grievance alleged that the employer improperly retracted a severance payment offer made during a transition to a new collective agreement.

The union determined the grievance lacked merit because the applicant was not facing a rate reduction and therefore was not entitled to the severance payment under the transition terms.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding the union's assessment of the grievance's merits and its decision not to proceed to arbitration were reasonable.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding its handling of grievances related to a job posting.

The union requested that the Board dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board directed the applicant to file a response to the union's request and provide further details about the grievances and collective agreement provisions relied upon before making a determination.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the incumbent union.

The responding employer argued the application should be dismissed because the applicant failed to deliver Form C-1 in a timely fashion as required by Rule 67.

The Board relieved against the strict application of the Rules under Rule 44, finding the deficiency was marginal, was cured quickly, and caused no actual prejudice.

The Board also addressed the incumbent's concerns about poll locations, noting the vote margin made the issue moot.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description, and the Board certified the applicant union following its victory in the representation vote.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by the union.

The union requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions in response.

The intervenor employer subsequently sought reconsideration of the Board's decision directing submissions, and requested an opportunity to review and respond to the applicant's submissions.

The Board rejected the employer's request for reconsideration, noting that in determining whether an application discloses a prima facie case, the Board generally confines its view to the applicant's pleadings.

The matter was directed to proceed to a consultation.

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

On the day scheduled for the hearing, the parties executed Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer.

Having regard to the agreement, the Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of the Board's decision dated June 29, 2001.

The Board noted that a request for reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-argue an unsuccessful case and is generally only entertained if new, determinative evidence is provided that could not have been obtained previously with due diligence.

The applicant failed to provide any new information that was not or could not have been placed before the Board previously.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.