Applicant directed to file reply to union's preliminary objections in duty of fair representation complaint.
The applicant filed an application alleging that the responding party union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The union filed a response requesting that the application be dismissed for delay, prematurity, and failure to disclose a prima facie case.
The Board directed the applicant to file a reply to the union's preliminary arguments and to identify which facts in the response she agrees or disagrees with within 10 days.
Representation vote ordered in certification application despite employer's section 8.1 notice.
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 applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to obtain a representation vote.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with disputed ballots to be segregated.
Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues are resolved.
Time for filing a response extended on consent.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted an extension of time for filing a response in this matter until May 13, 2001, based on the agreement of the parties.
Union certified as bargaining agent following successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the responding party.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found the bargaining unit appropriate.
The Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant union and cancelled previously set meeting and hearing dates.
Board requests submissions on CAW's request for intervenor status in joint application for early termination.
The applicant employer and responding union filed a joint application for the early termination of their collective agreement.
The CAW-Canada sought intervenor status and requested the Board set a three-month open period before consenting to the early termination.
The Board directed the applicant and responding party to file submissions on the CAW's requests.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, requested to withdraw its application against The Corporation of The Town of Perth.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.
Employer appeal of Order to Pay dismissed due to applicants' failure to attend the hearing.
The applicants (employers) appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.
A hearing was scheduled, but the applicants failed to attend.
After standing the matter down for 30 minutes, the Board dismissed the application due to the applicants' non-attendance.
The Board directed that the wages held in trust be remitted to the responding party employee.
The applicant requested to withdraw the application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
Board orders disbursement of funds held in trust pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.
The applicant employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.
The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the Director in trust to disburse the held funds, paying $5,000 to the employee, returning $1,718.80 to the employer, and retaining a $671.88 administration fee.
The matter was deemed terminated absent a request from the Ministry of Labour to relist it.
Application terminated following Minutes of Settlement between the parties.
The applicant filed an application against the responding parties.
Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement reached between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application terminated.
The applicant, Vista Insurance Brokers Limited, sought to withdraw its application against John Kuchta and the Ministry of Labour.
Matter adjourned on consent of the parties.
The applicant brought a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
On the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the matter to November 30 and December 1, 2000.
The applicant union withdrew its application against the responding party employer with leave of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Application adjourned sine die on consent for up to one year.
The applicant and responding party agreed to adjourn the application sine die.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.
Vice-Chair ruled he was not seized of an unfair labour practice complaint and referred it for scheduling.
The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint.
Following a representation vote, the union withdrew its status challenges, which would have resulted in the dismissal of the certification application but for the unfair labour practice complaint.
The complaint hearing was deferred because the employer had not received notice.
The union requested that a new panel hear the complaint as soon as possible, while the employer argued the current panel was seized.
The Vice-Chair ruled he was not seized of the complaint as he had not commenced hearing it, and referred the matter to the Registrar to be scheduled for hearing before a new panel at the earliest opportunity.
Ministry of Labour directed to respond to employer's request for reconsideration.
The employer requested that the Board reconsider its decision dated October 18, 2000.
The Board directed the Ministry of Labour to respond to the request by November 21, 2000, after which the Board will determine the matter.
Request for reconsideration of duty of fair representation complaint dismissal denied.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her duty of fair representation complaint against the union for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The Board extended the time limits for the request but ultimately dismissed it, finding that the applicant was attempting to reargue issues that were or could have been advanced previously.
The Board reiterated that the union's decision not to grieve a temporary transfer to which the applicant had agreed was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
Duty of fair representation complaint referred to hearing due to fundamental factual disputes over union's actions.
The applicant, a former non-tenured professor, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her faculty association, alleging it failed to act on her sexual harassment and interference complaints against a colleague for over a year.
The union contended the applicant initially instructed it not to act and that it later successfully prompted a formal university investigation.
Finding fundamental factual disputes regarding the union's actions and the applicant's instructions between March 1998 and June 1999, the Board referred the matter to a hearing, declining to dismiss the case on a preliminary basis despite potential remedial difficulties.
Motion to dismiss application without a hearing denied with leave to renew.
The responding party, Toronto Symphony Orchestra, requested that the Board dismiss the application without a hearing.
The applicant union opposed the request.
The Board declined to dismiss the application at this time, but permitted the responding party to renew its motion at the re-commencement of the hearing.
Application adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.
The applicant brought 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.