Caroline Rowan

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 funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $3,050 returned to the employer, $2,150 paid to the employee, and the $520 administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

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 with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer, agreeing to a payment of $500.00 to resolve all issues.

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

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a violation of section 57(1).

The responding party requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case, arguing the complaint relates to an alleged violation of the collective agreement and should be the subject of a grievance.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions in response within five days, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

The applicant applied to decertify the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, the union withdrew its objections to the application at the hearing.

The Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

Following a representation vote under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, a dispute arose over whether a ballot marked with both a shaded circle and an 'X' was spoiled.

The Board applied the test from National Starch and Chemical Co., finding that the voter's choice was clearly indicated and the voter's identity was not disclosed.

The ballot was counted in favour of OPSEU.

Based on the vote results and the parties' agreement, OPSEU was appointed as the bargaining agent, and the bargaining rights of the other unions were terminated.

The applicant union filed applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints against the responding employer.

The parties subsequently resolved all outstanding issues through a memorandum of settlement.

The unfair labour practice complaints were withdrawn with leave of the Board.

As the representation vote resulted in not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast in favour of the applicant, the certification application was dismissed.

The Board noted the potential application of section 10(3) of the Act to any subsequent certification application filed within one year.

In an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the responding party requested further particulars of the allegations.

The Board directed the applicant to either provide submissions opposing the request or provide the requested particulars within ten days.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant requested that the Board reactivate an application that had been previously withdrawn by leave of the Board on July 17, 2001, following an agreement between the parties.

The Board declined to reactivate the file, noting that the application remains withdrawn and the proceeding is terminated.

The Board made no comment on the applicant's ability to file a fresh application under section 74 of the Act.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement wherein the responding party acknowledged it was bound by the Provincial Collective Agreement, admitted to violating it, and agreed to pay $6,000 in damages.

The Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement.

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 trade union applied for certification to represent Sales Execution Specialists employed by the responding party in Hamilton, Ontario.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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.

The Board directed a representation vote and ordered that ballots of individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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

The Board found the applicant's proposed unit could be appropriate but noted a significant numerical difference between the parties' estimates.

The Board ordered a representation vote with the ballot box sealed until the disputes regarding the bargaining unit description and employee status are resolved.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

As the applicant had not previously been found to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board directed it to file materials establishing its status.

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

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board found that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The responding party employer filed a request for reconsideration of the Board's decision directing a representation vote in a union certification application.

The employer also requested disclosure relating to the union cards.

The Board deferred the reconsideration request to the panel scheduled to hear the main application.

Regarding disclosure, the Board confirmed that the union cards complied with Rule 66 and explained that it had compared the names on the cards against the employer's list of employees in the proposed bargaining unit, leading to the decision to seal the ballot box pending determination of the employer's section 8.1 objection.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement prior to the hearing of applications regarding an unlawful strike or lockout and an unfair labour practice.

The Board issued an order incorporating the agreed-upon terms, which guaranteed continued employment for specific individuals in the photography department and provided first opportunity for fill-in work to another individual.

The applications were subsequently withdrawn by leave of the Board.

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

The union requested that the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case or as premature, noting that it had filed a grievance on the same subject matter and was proceeding through the grievance procedure.

The applicant did not respond to the Board's direction to file submissions.

The Board found the application premature and exercised its discretion under section 96(4) of the Act to decline to inquire further, dismissing the application without prejudice.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board previously directed a representation vote and sealed the ballot box.

In this decision, the Board clarified that in determining whether 40% of the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union, it considered membership cards signed more than six months, and in some cases more than twelve months, prior to the application date.

The Board provided a breakdown of the card dates and scheduled a hearing to address outstanding issues, including the responding party's objection to the use of older membership cards.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following an agreement between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application pursuant to section 8.1(5)7 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board ordered the destruction of the ballots cast in the representation vote and directed the responding party to post copies of the decision.