Caroline Rowan

The applicant union and responding employer 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 neither party requests to proceed.

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

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the applicant nor the responding party employee attended.

After waiting the standard 30 minutes, the Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear.

The Board directed the Director of Employment Standards to pay out the monies held in trust to the claimant.

The applicants requested to withdraw their respective applications.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the requests, allowing the applications to be withdrawn with leave of the Board, and cancelled all remaining scheduled hearing dates.

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

The union requested that the Board dismiss the application without a hearing, asserting that an agreement was reached for the applicant's return to work upon providing a medical certificate.

However, the employer maintained that the applicant's employment remained terminated.

The Board declined to dismiss the application without a hearing and directed that the matter be set down for a consultation.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The responding employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the application was barred by the newly amended subsection 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which prohibits another application by any trade union for one year following a dismissed application.

A prior application by a different union had been dismissed within the year.

The applicant argued the new bar did not apply retrospectively.

The Board held that the new subsection 10(3) applied to the present application, as the legislature intended the broader mandatory bar to apply immediately upon enactment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act against his employer and his union.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application against it on the basis that it is not an employer under the Act.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the preliminary motions.

The applicant union filed a grievance referral against the responding employer.

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

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for alleged unpaid overtime.

The applicant claimed he worked 267 overtime hours over three and a half months, seeking $6,166.34.

The Board found the applicant's evidence regarding his hours worked lacked credibility and his self-kept records were unreliable, appearing to have been created at a single sitting.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay regarding outstanding vacation pay owed to a former employee.

The dispute centered on whether the employee took a week of vacation in September 1999 and whether a portion of his final paycheque included vacation pay.

The Board found insufficient evidence that the employee took the disputed vacation week, but agreed with the employer that $83.15 of the final paycheque was attributable to vacation pay.

The application was allowed in part, and the Order to Pay was amended to $861.44.

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 violated the collective agreement by failing to pay benefits, dues, contributions, and deductions.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to resolve the matter.

The Board issued declarations and orders in accordance with the agreement, finding the employer bound by the collective agreements and ordering the payment of $1,357.11 in damages and $2,000.00 in costs.

The employer applied for reconsideration of a Board decision declaring two entities to be a single employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employer argued that the non-construction employer amendments prohibited such a declaration and that the Board improperly exercised its discretion.

The Board dismissed these grounds, finding the amendments did not preclude a related employer declaration and that the union's bargaining rights were eroded when the employer expanded its construction activities.

However, the Board accepted a new argument that the union was required to register as a supplier under the Gaming Control Act to represent employees at gaming premises.

The Board deferred issuing the related employer declarations until the union obtained the requisite registration.

The Union of Employees of Glopak requested a brief adjournment to file its intervention in the application between Teamsters Local Union 91 and Glopak Inc. The Board granted the adjournment to December 22, 2000.

The parties requested an adjournment of the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the request and adjourned the matter to specific dates in March, April, and May 2001.

The applicants sought to withdraw their applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the applications were withdrawn.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the responding party terminated two employees contrary to the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued an order incorporating the settlement terms, which included a payment of $2,700 to each of the terminated employees and a one-year bar on further certification applications by the union.

The applications were withdrawn by leave of the Board.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the disbursement of the funds held in trust by the Director, with $3,500.00 paid to the employee, $1,960.03 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicants filed an application against the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local Sub-Unit 1146.

On 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 Board noted that if neither party requests to proceed within that time, the application will be deemed terminated.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party requested that the application be dismissed on the basis that the labour relations between the union and the employer are federally regulated, depriving the Board of jurisdiction.

The Board directed the applicant to file responding submissions within ten days, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

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

The responding employer raised allegations in its response, specifically claiming that the application was untimely because a collective agreement was already in force with another union.

The Board directed the applicant to respond to these allegations within five days.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision amending paragraph 10 of its December 8, 2000 decision in a union certification application.

Pursuant to section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed until further direction or agreement of the parties, as the responding party objected to the proposed exclusion of part-time employees from the bargaining unit.

The application was ordered to be listed together with a related file for a hearing to address the issue of whether there should be a single unit of full and part-time employees.