Bram Herlich

The applicant filed an application regarding the union's handling of his harassment and lost wages concerns.

The union initially relied on the fact that a grievance had been filed, but the applicant subsequently provided correspondence showing the union decided not to proceed to arbitration.

Given the lack of explanation for abandoning the grievance, particularly the concrete claim for lost wages, the Board directed the Registrar to list the matter for consultation.

The employer requested the Board to issue a decision incorporating a Memorandum of Agreement regarding damages for two employees, following a previous finding of unfair labour practices.

The union, which was the applicant in the original proceedings but had since been decertified, opposed the request and was not a party to the agreement.

The Board declined to issue a consent award, noting that the agreement was signed by only one party to the application, and remained seized with respect to issues of remedy.

The applicant appealed a stop work order issued by an Inspector under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

On the scheduled hearing day, the applicant and the Ministry of Labour executed Minutes of Settlement providing for the interim suspension of the order upon completion of certain steps.

The Board adjourned the matter sine die for up to one year, after which it will be deemed terminated unless re-listed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

On the scheduled hearing date, the parties filed a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Board directed that a new representation vote be held, noting that proper notice of the first vote was not provided to all employees.

The Board ordered the employer to post notices of the new vote and referred the matter to the Registrar.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying him termination pay.

The applicant was terminated after repeatedly refusing to wear required protective eye gear and a full face shield, despite multiple directions from the employer.

The Board found that the applicant's unjustified and unexplained refusal to wear protective health and safety equipment constituted wilful misconduct under the Employment Standards Act, exempting the employer from providing notice of termination.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant's representative requested that the Board reconsider its decision dismissing portions of a duty of fair representation complaint.

The representative argued he was not apprised of developments while another counsel briefly represented the applicant.

The Board declined to reconsider, noting that the applicant had been provided an opportunity to respond to preliminary motions through her then-counsel, and the representative's largely erroneous submissions provided no reason to revisit the decision.

The applicant trade union filed a complaint alleging the responding party trade union violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 due to overlapping jurisdictions in collective agreements with the same employer.

The responding party argued the application should be dismissed as there was no actual negative impact on the applicant's members.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the request to decline hearing the application before proceeding further.

The applicants failed to appear at the scheduled hearing for their application to review an Order to Pay.

After waiting more than half an hour, the Ontario Labour Relations Board proceeded in their absence.

Upon motion by the responding parties, the Board dismissed the application and noted that the Director could pay out the monies held in trust in accordance with the Order to Pay.

The applicant applied to review the decision of an Employment Standards Officer not to issue an order.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The responding parties moved to dismiss the application.

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 after it refused to file a grievance regarding his final layoff.

The union had previously assisted the applicant with two prior layoffs, resulting in his recall.

For the final layoff, the union concluded there was a genuine shortage of work and no basis in the collective agreement to grieve.

The Board dismissed the application, noting the applicant conceded there was no collective agreement basis for a grievance, making it impossible to find the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union regarding its handling of a workplace injury and subsequent accommodation.

The union and employer requested the complaint be dismissed without a hearing.

The Board dismissed the portion of the complaint relating to the accident itself due to a 17-month delay and the fact that the matter had already been addressed under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

However, the Board found a prima facie case regarding the union's failure to file grievances concerning the applicant's ongoing work assignment and accommodation, and directed that this portion proceed to a consultation.

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

The union and the intervenor employer asserted that the complaint should be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case, noting that the applicant's concerns were the subject of an ongoing grievance.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions responding to these assertions before determining whether to dismiss the application without a hearing.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and the only remaining issue was the applicant's trade union status.

The Board previously found the applicant's initial submissions insufficient to establish status.

The applicant clarified that a second set of submissions had been filed, which referenced prior Board decisions finding the applicant to be a trade union.

The responding party employer objected to the applicant's request to amend its name on the application and argued the application should be dismissed due to potential confusion in the membership evidence.

The Board directed the applicant to file its constitution and by-laws, and allowed the responding party to make further submissions before making a final determination on trade union status and the name amendment.

The applicant union filed a section 96 complaint against the responding party employer.

Following settlement discussions and representations from the parties, the Board ordered the responding party to pay $15,000 in trust to the applicant, to be distributed equally among six named individuals.

The Board noted that this payment constituted a complete and final settlement of the complaint, and the union acknowledged it had no further complaints under the collective agreement.

The complaint was terminated.

The applicants filed applications against the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the union had completely and finally addressed the minor residual concern expressed in prior decisions.

Consequently, the applications were fully and finally dismissed.

The employer requested that the Board issue a decision incorporating a Memorandum of Agreement executed by the company and two individuals.

The Board directed the union to file any submissions regarding the employer's request within three weeks, with the employer having two weeks to reply.

The employer applied to review an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay $544.00 in accrued vacation pay to a former employee.

The employer claimed the employee had already taken all accrued vacation.

The Board found the employee's evidence regarding his vacation history more reliable than the employer's, noting the employer failed to keep required vacation records.

The application was dismissed and the order to pay was upheld.

The applicant and the responding employer executed Minutes of Settlement regarding an application under the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application in accordance with section 69.1(5) of the Act.

The responding party employer submitted a second late request for an adjournment of the hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that the request will be dealt with at the commencement of the scheduled hearing, if necessary.

The applicant filed an application under the Employment Standards Act against the responding parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application in accordance with section 69.1(5) of the Act, having regard to the settlement executed by the responding employer.