Employer's request to dismiss duty of fair representation complaint on a prima facie basis denied.
The applicant filed an application alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue his discharge grievance to arbitration.
The employer requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The Board reviewed the applicant's amplified statement and concluded the matter would not be disposed of on a prima facie basis, directing that it be set down for a consultation.
Application dismissed after applicant expressed unequivocal intention not to attend the scheduled consultation.
The applicant filed an application alleging that the responding union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
Prior to the scheduled consultation, the applicant wrote to the Board expressing an unequivocal intention not to attend due to the cost of attending.
As a result, the Board cancelled the consultation and dismissed the application.
Union's application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant union requested to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.
Employer appeal dismissed; wage deductions for stolen money and uniform cost require written consent.
The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.
The employer had deducted $578.36 from the employee's final wages to cover the cost of a uniform and to partially offset $2,068.00 that the employee had stolen from the employer.
The employee had verbally consented to the deduction and was later convicted of the theft.
The Board upheld the Order to Pay and dismissed the appeal, finding that under section 14(1) of Regulation 325, an employer cannot make deductions from wages without the employee's written authorization, a court order, or statutory provision, none of which applied in this case.
Unfair labour practice complaint resolved by settlement agreement incorporated into a Board order.
The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding party employer.
The parties reached a settlement agreement, which included the employer paying $6,500 in general damages to the affected employee, sealing her personnel file, and providing a standard letter of reference.
The employee agreed to resign.
The Board issued orders directing the parties to comply with the terms of the Minutes of Settlement and terminated the proceedings.
Applications regarding bargaining rights following municipal amalgamation consolidated and Board Officer appointed for settlement efforts.
The employer filed two separate applications under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 regarding bargaining rights following municipal amalgamation.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board consolidated the applications to consider the collective bargaining consequences as a totality.
The Board appointed a Board Officer to meet with the parties to attempt to resolve the matters in dispute and directed the employer to provide notice to affected bargaining agents and employees.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed as union reasonably relied on counsel's advice not to arbitrate.
The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to advance her grievances to arbitration.
The grievances concerned unpaid overtime, missed breaks, and workplace harassment.
The union investigated the claims, obtained multiple legal opinions, and concluded there was insufficient evidence to succeed at arbitration.
The Board found the union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, noting it acted responsibly by thoroughly investigating and relying on counsel's advice.
The application was dismissed.
Employer prohibited from cross-examining employee on criminal record details; partial refund of trust funds ordered for time-barred claims.
In an employer appeal under the Employment Standards Act, the Board ruled on two interim issues.
First, the Board held that the employer's counsel could not cross-examine the self-represented employee on the details of her criminal record, as such details had no probative value regarding her credibility in this civil proceeding.
Second, the Board ordered the partial release of funds held in trust by the Director of Employment Standards, finding that the employee's claims for termination pay and certain wages were time-barred under section 82.3 of the Act, thereby reducing the employer's maximum potential liability.
Procedural direction extending the deadline for a union to file submissions.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief procedural direction granting the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 772 until April 26, 2001, to file its submissions.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicants sought to withdraw their application against the responding party union.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Reconsideration request denied as it merely expressed disagreement without raising new facts or arguments.
The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a Board decision dated March 22, 2001, pursuant to section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board denied the request, finding that the applicant merely expressed disagreement with the decision and did not present any new arguments or facts that could not have been presented at the original consultation.
Certification application dismissed as newly downloaded paramedics were already covered by existing all-employee bargaining units.
OPSEU applied for certification to represent paramedic employees who became employees of the County of Essex following the provincial downloading of land ambulance services.
The County, along with intervenors Teamsters and CUPE, argued the application was barred because the paramedics were already covered by one of their existing collective agreements.
The Board found that the scope clauses of the Teamsters and CUPE collective agreements provided complementary, all-employee coverage with no gap for OPSEU to assert bargaining rights.
Consequently, OPSEU's application was dismissed as untimely or otherwise barred, and the Board directed the remaining parties to determine which of the two existing units the paramedics fall into.
Employer appeal of Order to Pay terminated following Minutes of Settlement between the parties.
The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.
The parties concluded Minutes of Settlement, and the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the matter accordingly.
Board determines seniority rights and bargaining unit exclusions following municipal electrical utility amalgamation.
Following the amalgamation of several municipal electrical utilities into Hydro Ottawa, the parties sought a determination on two outstanding issues under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.
The Board held that former employees of Goulbourn Hydro were only entitled to seniority for their actual service with Goulbourn Hydro, rejecting the employer's argument that a pre-amalgamation resolution entitled them to credit for prior service with other utilities.
The Board also determined that the Key Accounts Co-ordinator position should be excluded from the bargaining unit due to its managerial nature, while all other disputed technical positions were included.
Adjournment granted where applicant's counsel was unable to attend due to a severe snow storm.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the consultation because her counsel was unable to attend due to a severe snow storm.
The responding parties opposed the adjournment.
The Board granted the adjournment to avoid prejudice to the applicant, noting that her counsel's absence was through no fault of his own.
Reconsideration denied; union failed to respond to post-hearing correspondence that merely corroborated existing evidentiary conclusions.
The applicant union requested reconsideration of a Board decision, arguing that the Board violated the audi alteram partem rule by relying on a post-hearing letter from the employer's counsel without giving the union an opportunity to respond.
The Board dismissed the request, finding that the union had ample opportunity to respond to the letter but chose not to do so, thereby conveying that its contents were accurate.
Furthermore, the Board noted that the letter merely corroborated conclusions already reached based on evidence presented at the hearing, and the decision would not have been altered even if the letter's contents were inaccurate.
Application adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.
The applicant brought an application against the union and the school board.
On agreement of the parties, the 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.
Duty of fair representation application dismissed where applicant's job loss resulted from his own abandonment of employment.
The applicant filed an application alleging that the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.
The applicant had been off work due to injury and repeatedly failed to attend meetings with the employer or provide necessary medical information to facilitate his return to work.
The employer eventually closed his file, treating him as having abandoned his employment.
The applicant then contacted the union, which filed a grievance and attempted to negotiate a severance package, but the employer refused.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, and that the applicant's job loss was due to his own default.
Reconsideration of duty of fair representation complaint dismissed as no new evidence was adduced.
The applicant requested reconsideration of an April 3, 2000 decision dismissing her duty of fair representation complaint against the union.
The Board denied the request, finding that the applicant raised no new matters that were not or could not have been raised prior to the original decision, and failed to establish any violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.
Applications adjourned sine die on consent for up to one year.
The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.
The Board granted the consent adjournment, noting that the applications would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within that time.