Union certified as bargaining agent for municipal employees following successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the responding party municipality.
Following a representation vote in which more than fifty per cent 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 certified the applicant union and ordered a certificate to issue.
Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure majority support in representation vote.
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 50% of the ballots were cast 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.
Representation vote deferred pending determination of the timeliness of a displacement application for certification.
The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.
The responding employer and intervenor union argued the application was untimely due to an existing collective agreement.
The applicant contended there was no signed collective agreement and the ratified agreement differed from the one agreed upon.
The Board deferred holding a representation vote until the timeliness of the application could be determined, balancing the applicant's arguments against the interests of the incumbent union and employer.
The matter was referred to the Registrar to set hearing dates.
Trade union's bargaining rights terminated after failing to respond to employer's application.
The applicant employer applied under section 65(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the responding trade union's bargaining rights.
The trade union failed to file a response to the application.
The Board found that the criteria under section 65(2) were established by the undisputed facts and exercised its discretion to terminate the trade union's bargaining rights.
Appeal of inspector's order allowed; impracticable to heat warehouse common areas due to open bay doors.
The applicant appealed an order from a Health and Safety Inspector requiring it to heat the common areas of its industrial mall to at least 18° Celsius pursuant to section 129 of Regulation 851 under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The applicant argued that the area was normally unheated and that the necessity of opening bay doors for loading and unloading made heating impracticable.
The Board accepted the applicant's evidence that the bay doors were frequently open.
The Board found that given the size of the doors, the frequency they remained open, and the size of the area, it was impracticable to heat the common areas to the prescribed temperature.
The appeal was allowed.
Reconsideration request dismissed as it merely attempted to re-argue the duty of fair representation complaint.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against the union.
The applicant argued the Board was biased because he heard rumours the case would be dismissed before the decision was released.
The Board dismissed the request, finding it was merely an attempt to re-argue the case and that rumours of a dismissal do not establish bias.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant union requested to withdraw its application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
Representation vote ordered in certification application, but ballot box sealed due to section 8.1 dispute.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at the Park Hyatt Toronto.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.
The Board ordered a representation vote.
However, because the employer filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 disputing the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the bargaining unit, the Board ordered that the ballot box be sealed following the vote until the Board orders otherwise or the parties agree.
The applicants requested to withdraw their application.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board at the applicant's request.
The applicant requested to withdraw the application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Employer's appeal of an Order to Pay dismissed due to failure to appear at hearing.
The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.
Despite receiving notice, the employer failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the appeal and ordered the wages held in trust to be disbursed to the employee.
Leave granted to withdraw applications following filing of Minutes of Settlement.
The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its applications against the responding parties.
Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union's flawed investigation of discharge grievance was not arbitrary.
The applicant, a health care aide, was discharged for allegedly leaving work early and having a co-worker swipe her time card.
The union investigated the grievance but ultimately decided not to proceed to arbitration, leading the applicant to file a duty of fair representation complaint under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board found that while the union's investigation was deficient in several respects, including a misunderstanding of how the card swipe system worked, these errors amounted to honest mistakes rather than gross negligence.
The Board concluded that the union's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the application.
Application for termination pay dismissed as the Board found the employee quit his employment.
The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an Order to Pay against his former employer.
The applicant alleged he was terminated or constructively dismissed following a workplace dispute.
The employer maintained that the applicant was only suspended and subsequently quit when he refused to return to work.
The Board found that the employer never intended to terminate the applicant's employment and that the applicant had quit.
The Board also rejected the constructive dismissal claim.
The application was dismissed.
Declaration of successor union rights granted following unopposed application under section 68.
The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor, the Aluminum Brick & Glass Workers International Union, by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.
The application was unopposed.
The Board granted the declaration, confirming the applicant as the successor for two separate bargaining units at the responding party's quarry.
Motion to dismiss applications without a hearing for lack of prima facie case denied.
The responding party union brought a motion to dismiss the applications without a hearing, arguing they did not disclose a prima facie breach of the Act.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the motion and directed that the applications be set down for consultation.
Applications adjourned sine die on consent for up to one year.
The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.
The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the matters would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within that time.
Employer's appeal dismissed; ordering an employee to leave after an ultimatum constitutes termination, not resignation.
The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay for termination pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.
The employer argued that the employee was not fired but had quit after issuing an ultimatum regarding working conditions.
The Board found that even accepting the employer's version of events, the employee had only stated an intention to quit if his demands were not met.
By telling the employee he was quitting and ordering him to leave the premises before the employee actually resigned, the employer effectively terminated the employment.
The employer's appeal was dismissed and the Order to Pay was confirmed.