Brian McLean

The applicants, who had been off work on workers' compensation benefits for many years, had their employment terminated for frustration of contract.

The union filed grievances but, after obtaining legal advice indicating a low chance of success, settled the grievances for extended health benefits.

The applicants filed duty of fair representation complaints.

The union moved to dismiss the complaints without a hearing.

The Board found the union carefully considered the merits, obtained legal advice, and acted properly based on the information available at the time.

The applications were dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board heard preliminary issues regarding multiple applications, including certification, termination of bargaining rights, and unfair labour practice complaints involving the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, District 2A, and 1318359 Ontario Limited.

The Board ordered the consolidation of the matters and directed the parties to provide specific documents and particulars to each other.

The Board also set the order of proceedings and scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her complaint.

The applicant filed substantial materials, including an opinion letter from a legal agent and a list of facts she disagreed with.

The Board found that the request was primarily an attempt to reargue the case and did not meet the established criteria for reconsideration.

The Board reiterated its finding that the applicant lacked credibility and did not have a genuine, subjective concern for her health and safety when she refused to perform work.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The union requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union had filed a grievance and held several meetings with the employer, and the applicant did not meaningfully dispute the union's decision to withdraw the grievance.

The application was dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie breach of the Act.

The applicant sought an adjournment of the application.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

Following the commencement of the hearing, the parties agreed to settle the matter.

The Board confirmed the settlement, ordering $2,000.00 to be paid to the employee from the funds held in trust, with the remainder returned to the employer and the administration fee retained by the Government of Ontario.

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay made by an Employment Standards Officer.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear.

The Board noted that the applicant had been mailed a notice of the hearing.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application and ordered the Director to pay out the monies held in trust to the individual employees in accordance with the Order to Pay.

The applicants filed complaints alleging that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act during their grievance arbitration.

The applicants claimed that union counsel was uncaring, incompetent, failed to call corroborating witnesses, and fell asleep during the hearing.

The Board dismissed the applications, finding that union counsel's strategic decisions, including not calling certain witnesses and not seeking judicial review of the arbitrator's award, were reasonable judgment calls.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and that the applicants received adequate representation.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding employers failed to file a statement of defence complying with the Board's rules and a prior order to provide particulars of subcontractors and payroll documents.

Applying Rules 160 and 161, the Board deemed the union's allegations to be true and found the employers liable for violating the collective agreement.

Following a hearing on damages, the Board ordered the employers to pay $45,674.68, which included lost wages and a 20% penalty pursuant to a prior settlement agreement.

The applicant, a former teacher dismissed by the Greater Essex County District School Board, filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the Windsor-Essex Catholic District School Board after it banned him from its property.

The Catholic Board raised preliminary objections, arguing the applicant was never its employee, failed to exhaust internal appeals, and sought an impossible remedy.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the preliminary objections, finding that section 87(1) of the Labour Relations Act could apply, deferral to internal appeals was not mandatory, and alternative remedies might be available even if the specific requested remedy was unlikely.

The applicants, employees in two separate bargaining units, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following a corporate acquisition and warehouse closures, the union negotiated a new collective agreement for a reopened warehouse with less favourable terms.

The applicants in one unit feared they might have to bump into the reopened warehouse under a job guarantee, while applicants in the closed warehouse sought to consolidate bargaining units to bump into the remaining open warehouse.

The Board dismissed the applications for failing to disclose a prima facie case, finding that a union owes no duty to consider the interests of another bargaining unit when negotiating for a specific unit, and that the union had no unilateral power to consolidate bargaining units.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's decision refusing to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.

Following a verbal altercation with her supervisor, the employer gave the applicant an ultimatum to either apologize or lose her job.

The applicant refused to apologize and left the workplace, prompting the employer to issue a Record of Employment stating she had quit.

The Board held that presenting the applicant with the choice to apologize or be fired, and her subsequent departure, constituted a termination of employment by the employer rather than a resignation.

The appeal was allowed, and the employer was ordered to pay eight weeks' termination pay plus vacation pay.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the employer violated the Act by unilaterally deducting overpaid wages from employees' paycheques.

The employer requested that the Board dismiss the application without a hearing or defer to the grievance and arbitration procedure.

The Board adjourned the application sine die, deferring the matter to arbitration, as the main dispute involved the Employment Standards Act and alleged breaches of the collective agreement.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging the union failed to advise her in a timely fashion about the status of her grievance after deciding not to proceed to arbitration.

The union requested the application be dismissed without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case and for delay.

The Board noted it was unclear how the union's conduct caused the $2,400 loss claimed by the applicant, given she had turned down a job offer from the employer because she had already found another job.

The Board directed the applicant to file a response explaining the causation of her loss before determining if the application would proceed.

The applicant, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Guelph-Wellington Women In Crisis.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its applications against the responding parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the applications were withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the responding party.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast were in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

The applicant brought an application against the responding party union.

The application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural decision extending the deadline for the responding party to file its response to the application to October 5, 2000.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief procedural decision extending the deadline for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636 to file its response to October 10, 2000.