Caroline Rowan

The Board noted that its previous decision directing a representation vote had not been posted in the workplace.

Pursuant to sections 111(2)(f) and (g) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer to enter the premises to post the Application, Notice of Vote and Hearing, and the previous decision.

The applicant, Inco Limited, and the responding parties, United Steelworkers of America Local 6500 and the Ministry of Labour, agreed to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not to exceed one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment on consent.

The applicant employer filed a complaint alleging the responding party union violated a Letter of Understanding in their collective agreement.

The responding party requested the application be dismissed as the matter was the proper subject of a grievance.

Noting that the applicant had already filed a grievance regarding the same issue, the Board exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Act to defer the matter to arbitration and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

The responding party was directed to post copies of the decision.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application for certification.

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

The Board directed the parties' attention to section 7(10) of the Act regarding the potential effect of the withdrawal on any subsequent application filed within one year.

The Registrar was directed to destroy the ballots cast in the representation vote after 30 days.

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

The application was filed after the 45-day deadline.

The applicant provided a contradictory explanation for the delay, claiming both that she was unaware of the deadline until September and that her sister had attempted to fax an appeal in July.

Given the length of the delay and the contradictory explanation, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the deadline and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing for an application for review under the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the adjournment request based on the written correspondence, but noted the applicant could renew the request before the panel at the hearing.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members at the time of the application.

The Board directed a representation vote for the bargaining unit of carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in the County of Simcoe and the District Municipality of Muskoka.

The responding party's objection under section 8.1 of the Act regarding the number of individuals in the bargaining unit was deferred to a post-vote hearing, as it did not raise a numerically significant challenge.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Résidence St. Louis.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The responding party's objection to the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit was deferred to a post-vote hearing if necessary.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file an application for review of an employment standards officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.

The applicant missed the 45-day deadline because he initially filed the wrong form.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the extension, noting the brief delay and the applicant's timely attempt to file using the incorrect form.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was directed by the Board, but no ballots were cast by employees in the bargaining unit.

As a result, the Board dismissed the application and noted the potential application of the one-year bar under section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act for any subsequent applications.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty per cent 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 dismissed the application.

The Board directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Act regarding the effect on any subsequent application filed within one year.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party failed to pay correct wages and vacation pay to four workers.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board deemed the responding party to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the responding party violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $2,402.00 in damages, plus $614.00 in costs.

The applicant employer appealed an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

The applicant and one of the responding employees entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the disbursement of funds held in trust by the Director in accordance with the settlement, paying $1,500 to the employee and returning $1,203.62 to the employer.

The appeal regarding the second employee was scheduled to proceed to a hearing.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union's construction industry grievance should be dismissed due to delay.

The union filed the grievance in May 2001, alleging the employer used non-union workers for carpentry work on a golf course project starting in June 2000.

The Board found that the union ought to have known about the alleged breaches by August 2000.

The Board held that the grievance was a continuing grievance, meaning the 90-day time limit applied to each repetition of the breach.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits for earlier breaches, as the union failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The grievance was permitted to proceed, but relief was limited to violations occurring within 90 days prior to the filing date.

The applicant employer filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Ministry of Labour advised the Board that the investigation had not yet commenced and no determination had been made.

The Board terminated the proceeding, finding the application premature and noting that, in any event, an application for review is not properly made unless the applicant pays the amount of the order into trust as required by section 68(7) of the Act.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act disputing the applicant's estimate of the number of employees, but agreed the ballots should be counted.

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

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with half the wages returning to the employer and half paid to the employee, while the administration fee was retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.