Brian McLean

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

The applicant, who was on layoff, challenged the union's handling of a policy grievance concerning the employer's practice of scheduling overtime while employees remained laid off.

The Board found that the union's actions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, noting that a prior arbitration award had established the employer's right to schedule such overtime.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a sale of part of Ontario Hydro's business to the Bracebridge Hydro-Electric Commission.

The parties agreed that a sale and intermingling of employees had occurred following a municipal takeover under the Power Corporation Act.

The Board determined that the existing bargaining structure of separate 'inside' (office) and 'outside' units should be maintained.

The Board ordered a representation vote for the office employees, as the applicant formerly represented a sufficient percentage (one of three) of the intermingled employees.

However, the Board declined to order a vote for the outside employees, as the applicant formerly represented only 10% of that unit, and terminated the applicant's bargaining rights with respect to the outside unit.

The employee and the employer both filed requests for reconsideration of a previous Board decision.

The employee's request was denied as it was an attempt to relitigate the case and introduce evidence that was available at the original hearing.

The employer's request to correct calculation errors and include vacation pay in the order was granted.

The Director was ordered to pay $2,072.79 to the employer and $1,678.02 to the employee.

The union and the employer filed cross-complaints alleging failure to bargain in good faith.

At the hearing, the Board noted that the negotiations were characterized by personal conflict unrelated to the bargaining issues, and that proceeding with a hearing would likely exacerbate the situation.

Exercising its discretion under section 96(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board declined to inquire into the complaints at this time, finding it would serve no labour relations purpose.

The Board adjourned the hearings and directed the parties to meet within three weeks to bargain in good faith and make every reasonable effort to conclude a collective agreement.

The union and the employer made a joint application for the Board's consent to the early termination of their collective agreement to facilitate a merger of bargaining units.

Ninety-seven employees objected, alleging the ratification vote was mishandled and designed to limit participation.

The Board granted consent to the early termination, noting that the statutory restriction on early termination is intended to protect employees' rights to change bargaining agents during the open period.

Because the objections related to the ratification process and the terms of the new agreement rather than representation rights, they did not warrant withholding consent.

The applicant union and responding employers agreed to adjourn the grievance referral application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the consent adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

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

Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement filed by the parties, the Board ordered that the application be terminated.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision dated June 12, 2000.

The Board found that the previous decision was in error by directing payment to the employee.

The Board rescinded the previous decision and ordered that the wage portion of the monies held in trust be paid to the applicant, with the administration fee retained by the Government of Ontario Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant employer withdrew its appeal of an employment standards matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that the wages held in trust by the Director be paid to the employee, and the statutory administration costs be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The responding party union requested that the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint be dismissed without a hearing on the grounds of delay and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board noted that the request appeared to have considerable merit and directed the applicant to file submissions, including an explanation for the delay, before determining whether the application could proceed.

The applicants, employees of General Motors, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by revoking a grievance settlement that would have benefited them.

The settlement, reached after a plant sale, gave certain skilled trades workers the right to return to a sold facility if laid off.

A newly elected union executive believed the settlement unfairly advantaged one classification and successfully sought the employer's consent to cancel it.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that a union may revoke a settlement with employer consent provided it does not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The union's genuine belief that the settlement was bad was a sufficient and non-arbitrary reason for its actions.

The applicant sought to withdraw its application following a Memorandum of Agreement reached between the parties.

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

The applicant requested to withdraw her application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The employers brought a preliminary motion to adjourn applications filed by two unions regarding a reorganization of food distribution warehouses.

The employers argued the applications were premature because employees represented by the responding union had not yet been moved to the new consolidated facility, meaning no intermingling had occurred.

The Board agreed that it had no jurisdiction to order a representation vote under section 69(6) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 until intermingling actually took place.

The Board adjourned the proceedings but directed the scheduling of hearing dates for early the following year to mitigate the responding union's concerns about delay prejudicing its position.

The Board set aside its previous decision dated June 6, 2000, due to a significant factual error.

The Board had erroneously stated that the ballots from a representation vote had been counted, when in fact the ballot box remained sealed.

The intervenor was permitted to raise any outstanding issues at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the intervenor union sought to delay the disposition pending other proceedings and argued the application should be dismissed due to an allegedly inaccurate certificate of delivery.

The Board rejected the intervenor's arguments, found the bargaining unit appropriate, and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision to correct an omission in its previous decision dated March 20, 2000.

The Board ordered that the wage portion of the monies held in trust by the Director be paid to the employee, Sadrudin Lalji, and that the administration fee be retained by the Government of Ontario Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant filed a displacement application for certification.

A representation vote was held, with more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast in favour of the applicant.

The only outstanding issue was whether the applicant had trade union status under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Based on the applicant's constitution and minutes, and with the responding party taking no position, the Board found the applicant to be a trade union.

A certificate was issued for the agreed bargaining unit.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The intervenor union requested that the application be dismissed for non-compliance with the Rules of Procedure or postponed pending a contempt motion and Canadian Labour Congress proceedings.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's requests, finding no valid reason to delay the final determination.

As more than 50 percent of the ballots cast in the representation vote were in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer regarding termination pay for a gas pipeline locator.

The employee was terminated after an argument with the company president over a suspension related to the employee's refusal to locate pipelines based on allegedly inaccurate blueprints.

The Board found that the termination was partly due to the employee exercising his rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act to refuse unsafe work, and that the employer failed to prove willful misconduct.

The employer's appeal was dismissed and the employee was found entitled to termination pay.