Caroline Rowan

The applicant employer sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay $11,000 in unpaid wages and vacation pay to the respondent claimant.

The claimant argued she was entitled to an unconditional quarterly payment of $2,500 as part of her oral employment contract.

The employer contended the payments were a discretionary bonus conditional on the company's Toronto office becoming profitable.

The Board preferred the employer's evidence, finding the bonus was conditional on profitability, a condition that was never met.

The Board concluded the discretionary bonus did not fall under the definition of 'wages' in the Employment Standards Act and rescinded the Order to Pay.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by failing to assist him with grievances related to his forced retirement and subsequent termination.

In its response, the union requested that the application be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Board reviewed the strict test for dismissing an application on a prima facie motion, noting that it must accept all allegations in the application as true and provable.

The Board concluded that it should not exercise its discretion to dismiss the application without a consultation, as the applicant's allegations regarding the union's failure to process his grievances warranted further review.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to set a date for a consultation.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

Following a settlement with one employee, the employer reached a settlement with the remaining employee and the Ministry of Labour at the hearing.

The Board ordered the disbursement of funds held in trust in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement, returning $11,160 to the employer and retaining an $840 administrative fee for the Ministry.

The application was terminated pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant union and responding party employer reached an agreement to withdraw the applications.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications and cancelled the previously set meeting and hearing dates.

The applicant sought a review of a refusal to issue an order under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties entered into written Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer.

As the settlement disposed of all issues in dispute, the Board terminated the application in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay termination pay to the claimant employee.

The employer argued the claimant quit his employment.

The Board found that the claimant expressed an intention to resign at a future date, but the employer directed him to leave immediately.

The Board held that the employer transformed the intended resignation into a termination, entitling the claimant to termination pay.

The Order to Pay was affirmed.

The applicants and responding party agreed to adjourn the applications sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the applications will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against La Moda, the Hair Cut Centre and the Ministry of Labour.

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

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party employer failed to make required remittances under the Provincial Collective Agreement.

The responding party did not file a response or attend the hearing.

The Board found that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement and had failed to remit payments for February, March, and April 2001.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $14,613.04 in outstanding remittances, liquidated damages, and interest, plus $749.00 for the applicant's Board fees.

The applicants, support staff and members of OSSTF, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaints did not make out a prima facie case and should be dismissed without a hearing.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the deduction of union dues, finding it related to internal union affairs not governed by section 74.

The Board also exercised its discretion not to inquire into complaints about a retaliatory message and financial information requests.

However, the Board refused to dismiss the complaints alleging the union failed to pursue grievances regarding job reclassification and seniority, finding they raised an arguable case that would proceed to consultation.

The applicant union filed applications under sections 43 and 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration pursuant to section 43(2).

The Board also consented to adjourn the section 96 application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The Union applied for a related employer declaration under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board previously found the responding parties were carrying on associated or related activities but deferred making the declaration until the Union confirmed it did not require registration under the Gaming Control Act, 1992.

The Union provided confirmation from the Alcohol and Gaming Commission that registration was not required.

The Employer requested a postponement pending a reconsideration by the Commission.

The Board declined to postpone, issued the related employer declaration, and found no compelling reasons to limit its retrospective effect, making it effective from April 20, 1999, when the related activities commenced.

The Kenora District Services Board applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding a sale of business and representation vote.

Following an agreement between the parties and a representation vote, the Board declared a sale of business from several hospitals and health centres to the applicant.

The Board also defined the appropriate bargaining unit and ordered that the Memorandum of Settlement govern the determination of the successful bargaining agent.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and established sufficient membership support (not less than 40%) in the proposed bargaining unit.

Despite disputes over the exact composition of the bargaining unit and managerial exclusions, the Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with disputed individuals permitted to cast segregated ballots.

The applicants applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding the sale of a business.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement agreeing that Securitas Canada Limited is a successor employer, that employees would be integrated into the Burns Collective Agreements, and that the Pinkerton's Collective Agreement would no longer bind the successor.

The Board issued declarations incorporating the terms of the settlement.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the application and directed the employer to post copies of the decision for affected employees.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding employers.

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

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against the Service Employees' International Union.

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

The responding party union brought a motion to dismiss the employer's unfair labour practice complaint for failing to make out a prima facie case, or alternatively, to consolidate it with the union's own complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to dismiss the employer's application without a hearing, noting that the discretion to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case should only be exercised in the clearest of cases.

The Board directed that the two applications be heard together, leaving the formal decision on consolidation to the hearing panel.

The applicants requested that two applications relating to the same subject matter be heard together.

The intervenor/responding party opposed the request because the applications involved different applicants and respondents.

The Board directed that the applications be listed for hearing before the same panel, leaving the determination of whether they will be heard together, consecutively, or otherwise to that panel.