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 no request to proceed is made.

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

The responding employee subsequently withdrew his claim and requested that the funds held in trust be returned to the employer.

The Ministry of Labour objected, arguing that an employee cannot withdraw a claim after an Order to Pay has been issued and that the administration fee cannot be refunded without a hearing or a request to the Director.

The Board held that the funds could not be returned without the consent of all parties, including the Ministry, and directed the parties to advise whether they consented to allowing the application for review.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote, the parties agreed that five segregated ballots were not relevant to the outcome and that the decision should be based on the 22 remaining ballots.

As not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board dismissed the application for certification and directed the parties' attention to the statutory bar for subsequent applications under section 10(3) of the Act.

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

Neither the applicant nor the responding party employee appeared at the scheduled hearing.

After waiting the normal thirty minutes, the Board convened the hearing and dismissed the application.

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

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay for termination and vacation pay.

The claimant employee had offered two weeks' notice of resignation, which the employer refused, telling the employee to leave immediately.

The Board found that by refusing the notice period, the employer transformed the intended quit into a termination under the Employment Standards Act.

The Order to Pay was affirmed.

The applicant union and responding employers 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 party requests to proceed.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the union failed to provide a written response to his concerns about collective agreement violations.

The union and the employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case of a section 74 violation.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the requests for dismissal, specifically indicating which facts pleaded by the union and employer he disputes.

The responding party employer requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision extending the deadline for the applicant to file an application for review.

The Board declined to entertain the request because it was not filed in the form or manner required by the Board's Rules of Procedure and was not copied to all parties.

The Board extended the deadline for filing a proper request for reconsideration by 20 days.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business regarding ambulance services downloaded to the County of Huron.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing that a sale of a business had occurred and defining the appropriate bargaining unit for paramedics.

The Board issued declarations and orders in accordance with the settlement, including directing a three-way representation vote between the competing unions.

The applicant employee appealed the refusal of an Employment Standards Officer to issue an Order to Pay.

The responding employer requested an adjournment, submitting documents establishing that it was subject to a stay of proceedings under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act extended to December 12, 2001.

The Board granted the request and adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board received a request for reconsideration of its November 9, 2001 decision.

Because the previous decision directed that monies held in trust be paid out, the Board revoked that decision pending consideration of the request for reconsideration.

The applicant and responding party employee were directed to file any responding submissions within two days.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding its handling of his termination grievance and a grievance for termination and severance pay.

The union brought preliminary motions to dismiss the application.

The Board found that the union's decision to withdraw the termination grievance was based on a reasonable assessment of its merits and the applicant's failure to communicate.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the termination grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie case, and dismissed the complaint regarding the severance pay grievance as premature because it had already been referred to arbitration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Board decision that denied an extension of time to file an application for review under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant's sister clarified that they were unaware of the 45-day deadline because they did not receive the written decision until September 6, 2001.

The Board accepted this explanation, reconsidered its previous decision, and exercised its discretion to extend the deadline for filing the application to September 19, 2001.

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

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the disbursement of the $984.00 held in trust by the Director, with $600.00 to the employee, $284.00 returned to the employer, and a $100.00 administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant sought an adjournment of the application.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties present at the hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application to January 2, 2002.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application via correspondence.

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

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 Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $1,576.64 paid to the employer, $1,576.64 paid to the employee, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On consent of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent 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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the specified bargaining unit of journeymen and apprentice carpenters.

The applicant school board sought to suspend an inspector's order requiring it to conduct air monitoring in various rooms under maximum occupancy conditions, pending its appeal of the order.

The Board applied the three-factor test for suspending an order under section 61(7) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that the applicant would not suffer significant prejudice by complying with the order, and that there was a possibility of endangering worker safety if the order were suspended, given complaints of symptoms related to air quality and a WSIB decision finding a correlation.

The application for suspension was dismissed.