Bram Herlich

The applicant filed an application for a declaration terminating bargaining rights.

The responding union asserted the application was untimely due to recent amendments to the Labour Relations Act, 1995 concerning the residential construction sector.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions regarding the timeliness of the application.

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.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board determined that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be taken among the employees in the voting constituency.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The Board previously directed the applicant to file a revised application with a coherent summary of facts and specific allegations.

The applicant filed further materials that failed to clarify the complaint, appeared to relate to events up to 19 years old, and sought fines against the employer and union, which the Board has no authority to levy.

The application was dismissed for failure to provide particulars, extreme delay, and seeking unavailable relief.

The applicant filed an application against the responding party trade union.

Following an arbitrator's decision dismissing the applicant's grievance, the union and the intervenor employer requested that the application be dismissed.

The applicant did not provide any reason for the matter to proceed.

The Board dismissed the application based on the uncontested submissions.

The applicant, a contract employee, was terminated by the employer due to a poor attendance record.

She filed a complaint alleging that her termination was an unlawful reprisal for raising health and safety concerns regarding dust and dust mites in the workplace, contrary to section 50(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that the termination was part of a province-wide review of contract staff and was based entirely on her absenteeism, with no anti-safety animus.

The Board also held that it lacked jurisdiction under section 50(7) of the OHSA to substitute a penalty, as that provision applies only to disciplinary discharges, whereas the applicant's termination for innocent absenteeism was non-disciplinary.

The application was dismissed.

Following a representation vote, the Board sought submissions on its legal effect.

The applicant union asserted no reason to alter current collective bargaining relationships until January 1, 2001, but offered no suggestions for after that date.

The responding party employer made no submissions.

The Board terminated the matter.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for December 14, 2000.

The responding party employee objected to the adjournment, citing the length of time the case had been ongoing and personal scheduling conflicts.

The Board noted that the reasons for the applicant's adjournment request were undisputed.

The Board granted the adjournment but directed that the matter be rescheduled and proceed without further delay absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing due to a high-risk pregnancy and impending maternity leave.

The Ministry of Labour did not object to the request.

The Board granted the adjournment, conditional upon receiving no objections from the affected employee by a specified date.

The applicants filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding the recognition of their past seniority as provincial government employees following a transfer to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

During a scheduled consultation, the parties reached Minutes of Settlement agreeing to refer the seniority issue to arbitration.

The Board directed the parties to comply with the terms of the settlement and remained seized of the matter.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74.

The applicant, a probationary employee, was discharged and claimed the union should have helped him.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the applicant failed to make out an arguable case.

The application did not allege any arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, nor did it indicate that the union was ever asked to assist the applicant.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision to issue an Order to Pay.

At the commencement of the hearing, the parties advised the Board that they had resolved all matters in dispute.

The Board issued a decision reflecting the agreement, directing the disbursement of the $642.80 held in trust to the respective parties and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant filed an application before the Board.

The employer subsequently advised the Board that the related arbitration proceeding had concluded with the applicant's grievance being dismissed, and requested that the application be dismissed.

The Board directed the applicant and the union to provide written submissions showing cause as to why the application should proceed.

The applicant trade union applied for a declaration that it had acquired the bargaining rights of its predecessor, SEIU, with respect to employees of Kraft Canada Inc. Although the application was unopposed, the Board declined to grant the declaration on the basis of the materials filed.

The Board found the narrative description of the transfer too skeletal to conclude a transfer had occurred, and noted the applicant had never previously been found to be a trade union within the meaning of the Act.

The Board granted the applicant three weeks to file further submissions and documentary evidence.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Board found the application narrative to be incoherent and was unable to discern the nature of the facts alleged, noting that the only explicit reference to termination dated back to 1981.

The Board directed the applicant to file a revised application containing a summary of relevant facts, specific acts contrary to the Act, and the relief sought within 20 days, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

The responding parties were not required to file a response until a proper application was filed.

Following a representation vote where more than 50% of voters cast ballots against the applicant trade union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the parties to provide submissions on the legal effect of the vote.

The Board noted that the parties had previously agreed to address this issue when required.

If no submissions are received within three weeks, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent 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 Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote.

Despite a dispute over the geographic scope and inclusion of certain positions, the Board directed that disputed individuals could cast segregated ballots.

The Board declined to seal the ballot box in response to the employer's section 8.1 notice, finding the numerical differences insignificant.

A dissenting Board member would have sealed the ballot box or delayed the vote until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit was imposed.

The applicant unions filed applications for declarations of a sale of a business from the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

The responding parties argued the applications were premature as the plan for pediatric mental health services was still being developed and would not be implemented until the summer of 2001.

The Board directed the responding parties to produce all relevant documentation to the applicants pursuant to section 69(13) of the Act.

The parties were directed to advise the Board on the ripeness of the issues once the documents were reviewed, and the matter was ordered to proceed in the normal course in the interim.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.