Caroline Rowan

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

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

The Board directed that the monies held in trust by the Director be paid out in accordance with the settlement and terminated the application.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a representation vote in which more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found it unnecessary to determine whether the intervenor employer was engaged in the construction industry, as it would not affect the outcome of the application.

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 $2,288.00 held in trust by the Director, with $1,680.00 to the employee, $400.00 to the employer, and $208.00 retained as an administration fee.

The matter was deemed terminated absent a request from the Ministry of Labour to relist it for hearing.

The responding party claimed it did not receive the Application for Certification until November 6, 2001, contrary to the applicant's Certificate of Delivery stating November 5, 2001.

The Board directed the applicant to file satisfactory proof of delivery by November 5, 2001, failing which the Board would accept the responding party's contention that delivery occurred on November 6, 2001, for the purpose of determining when to direct a representation vote.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay termination and vacation pay to a former employee.

The employee had been laid off without a specific recall date, which the Employment Standards Officer determined was an indefinite lay-off constituting termination under the Employment Standards Act.

The employer argued the lay-off was temporary, or alternatively, that the employee was estopped from claiming termination pay because he was subsequently recalled, or that the recall period constituted working notice.

The Board found that the failure to provide a specific recall date within the statutory temporary lay-off period resulted in an indefinite lay-off, deemed to be a termination.

The Board rejected the estoppel and working notice arguments, affirming the Order to Pay.

The applicant union requested that its grievance referral be heard together with its related employer and sale of business applications.

The union also requested that the additional employers named in the related employer application be added as responding parties to the grievance referral.

The Board directed that the applications be listed for hearing together.

The Board deferred consideration of the request to add the additional employers to the grievance referral until after the related employer application is considered, noting that the union had not filed an amended Certificate of Delivery for those employers.

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

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations 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 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 $2,750.00 paid to the employee and $2,130.26 returned to the employer.

The applicant employee appealed the refusal of an Employment Standards Officer to issue an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The responding employer argued that the proceedings were stayed pursuant to an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Board noted that the stay of proceedings expired on November 2, 2001.

Consequently, the Board directed that the scheduled hearing would proceed in the normal course.

The applicant union referred grievances to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for an interim settlement.

The agreement required the responding employers to submit to an audit in accordance with the Carpenters' Provincial Agreement and requested an adjournment.

The Board incorporated the agreement into its decision, directed the audit, and adjourned the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union requested the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case and for being premature regarding a grievance for severance and termination pay.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the union's requests.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it acted in bad faith by failing to refer his job competition grievance to arbitration.

The union had processed the grievance through the grievance procedure but ultimately decided not to proceed to arbitration following a vote at a union membership meeting.

The Board found that the union had adequately turned its mind to the merits of the grievance, made reasonable assessments regarding the collective agreement, and conducted the membership meeting fairly.

The application was dismissed as there was no evidence of bad faith, malice, or arbitrary conduct by the union.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of the Board's decision dated September 25, 2001.

The Board directed the responding parties to file any submissions in response within five days, and the applicant to file any reply submissions within two days thereafter.

The Board issued a decision correcting an error in paragraph 4 of its French decision dated October 19, 2001.

The amendment clarified the responding party's dispute regarding the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and its notice under section 8.1 of the Act.

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

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with disputed positions permitted to cast segregated ballots.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act for unpaid vacation pay and wages for a training period.

The employer disputed the hourly rate and the number of training hours assessed by the Employment Standards Officer.

The Board preferred the employee's evidence, finding that the agreed hourly rate was $12.00 and the training period was six hours.

The application was dismissed and the Order to Pay was affirmed.

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

The employer provided uncontradicted evidence that it had paid the overtime, but admitted to deducting $450 from the employee's wages to recover a debt based on a verbal agreement.

The Board found that the deductions were prohibited under section 8 of the Employment Standards Act because there was no written authorization.

The Order to Pay was varied and reduced to $450 plus a statutory administration fee.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a prior Board decision but failed to deliver the request and the required Notice of Request for Reconsideration to the responding parties.

The Board directed that it would not consider the request until the documents were properly delivered and an amended Certificate of Delivery was filed.

The applicant requested an order for the production of various documents.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding parties to file any submissions in response to the request within two days.

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

The responding party requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing under Rule 46, alleging the applicant never raised health and safety concerns during his employment.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the request to dismiss and specifically addressing whether he raised concerns prior to termination.