Caroline Rowan

The applicant union applied under section 43 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The union alleged that collective bargaining had been unsuccessful due to the employer's refusal to negotiate contracting, subcontracting, and job security provisions.

The Board found that bargaining had been slowed by confusion over the scope of the union's bargaining rights, but that the employer had made a verbal proposal on the issues.

The Board concluded that it did not appear that the process of collective bargaining had been unsuccessful and dismissed the application.

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

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement, under which the employer agreed to donate $500 to the Canadian Diabetes Association.

Pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act, the Board terminated the application.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union filed an application against the responding party employer.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties dated May 25, 2000, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that the application be terminated.

In a certification proceeding, the applicant union requested the production of contracts, subcontracts, and other documentation relating to work performed at three job sites.

The responding party provided some documents but objected to others.

The Board found that the requested documents were arguably relevant to determining the nature of the work performed by disputed individuals and the identity of their employer on the date of application.

The Board ordered the responding party to produce the outstanding documents, limited to work performed on the date of application, and permitted the redaction of sensitive financial information.

The employer applied for a declaration of an unlawful strike and a direction prohibiting picketing at its Timmins facility by employees from its Chapleau facility.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter on consent terms, including an undertaking by the union and individual respondents not to picket any Domtar mill in Ontario (except Chapleau) pending the hearing and decision.

The Board granted the adjournment on the agreed terms.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and related unfair labour practice and consent to prosecute complaints against the responding employer.

Following an agreement between the parties, the unfair labour practice and prosecution complaints were withdrawn by leave of the Board.

Based on the results of a representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board issued a certificate to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by refusing to advance his seniority grievance to arbitration.

The applicant claimed his seniority should rank ahead of a co-worker who allegedly had a break in service.

The union settled the co-worker's grievance, restoring his original seniority date, because the employer had no records of a break in service.

The Board found that the union turned its mind to the issue, considered the evidence, and made a decision that was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The application was dismissed.

An employee filed an application for termination of bargaining rights, and the union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging employer interference.

The Board directed a representation vote and sealed the ballot box pending the resolution of the union's allegations.

During the hearing, the parties agreed to count the ballots and the union withdrew its unfair labour practice complaint.

The ballot count revealed that not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the termination application.

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

The workplace parties reached a settlement agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, returning $554.32 to the employer and retaining $100.00 for administrative fees.

The union applied for certification to represent carpenters employed by the newly amalgamated Greater Essex County District School Board.

The school board argued the application was barred by the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, which restricted the geographic scope of the union's successor bargaining rights to the City of Windsor.

The Board held that the successor rights provisions did not bar a regular certification application to expand bargaining rights.

The Board also found that recent amendments excluding school boards as 'non-construction employers' did not apply retroactively to this pending application.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit, excluding employees outside the ICI sector already covered by subsisting agreements, and referred the matter to resolve the voters' list.

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 no request to proceed is made.

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

On agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application effective October 25, 1999, and imposed a one-year bar on further applications for certification by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its applications for certification and unfair labour practice.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications and imposed a one-year bar on any new application for certification by the applicant or its affiliated bargaining agents for the same bargaining unit.

The Board also directed the destruction of ballots cast in the representation vote.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, sought to withdraw its application against the responding parties, Metro Taxi Ltd. c.o.b. as Capital Taxi and Mark Andre Way.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

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

The application and required payment into trust were received by the Board one day after the 45-day statutory deadline.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the deadline, noting that the applicant had sent the application prior to the expiry of the deadline and provided an explanation for the delay.

The applicant notified the Ontario Labour Relations Board that it was withdrawing its request for reasonable costs and its request for reconsideration.

As there were no other outstanding issues, the Board terminated the proceeding.

The applicant employer sought to suspend an inspector's order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act pending an appeal.

The order required the employer to modify its rear-loading mobile refuse compacting trucks to ensure operators had a clear view of the point-of-operation and could not reach into it.

The employer argued it had already complied with a previous order and would suffer prejudice if forced to make further modifications.

The Board declined to suspend the order, finding the employer had not demonstrated significant prejudice that would outweigh the potential risk to worker safety, and had not established a strong prima facie case for a successful appeal.

The applicant submitted correspondence to the Ontario Labour Relations Board purporting to apply for a review under the Employment Standards Act.

The Registrar informed the applicant that the appeal did not conform with Rule 24 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, which requires appeals to be filed on Form A-69.

The applicant was given 20 working days to file the proper form but failed to do so.

As a result, the Board terminated the proceeding.