Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.
Board sets hearing dates on its own initiative after parties fail to agree on scheduling.
The Board, on its own initiative, set dates for a pre-hearing conference and preliminary motions in a long-standing dispute between various locals and conferences of the bricklayers' unions.
Attempts to arrange mutually agreeable dates had failed, and the Board determined that the outstanding litigation was prolonging the dispute.
The Board scheduled a meeting with counsel to discuss preliminary issues and set dates for hearing preliminary motions.
Partial settlement reached in employment standards review; further hearing scheduled for constructive dismissal claim.
The employer and the employee both sought a review of an employment standards officer's order to pay.
During the hearing, the parties reached a partial settlement regarding outstanding wages, commissions, and vacation pay.
The Board dismissed the employer's application for review, ordered the release of funds held in trust to the employee, and directed the employer to pay an additional sum.
The Board scheduled a further hearing to determine the remaining issue of whether the employee was constructively dismissed and entitled to termination pay.
Applications to terminate bargaining rights dismissed because no employees were working within the bargaining unit's geographic scope.
The applicants filed applications to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union with respect to the intervenor employer.
The sole issue was whether any employees were working within the geographic scope of the relevant collective agreements on the application date.
The employees were working in St. Thomas, which is outside the geographic scope of the agreements (Board Area 8 and Simcoe County).
The Board found that the travel allowance provisions and the union's issuance of clearance slips did not extend the geographic scope of the bargaining unit.
As there were no employees at work in the bargaining unit on the application date, the applications were dismissed.
Employee who performed significant physical labour alongside supervisory duties is not exempt from overtime pay.
The applicant employer sought review of an employment standards officer's decision ordering it to pay overtime to a former employee.
The employer argued the employee was exempt from overtime pay because his work was solely supervisory or managerial in character.
The Board found that while the employee directed the flow of work, he also performed a significant amount of physical labour and lacked authority over hiring, firing, and wages.
The Board concluded the employee's work was not solely managerial and upheld the order to pay overtime.
Parliament cannot constitutionally deprive a provincial tribunal of the authority to determine its own jurisdiction.
The responding party, Supply Chain Express Inc., raised a preliminary objection asserting that its labour relations were governed by federal legislation and that recent amendments to the Canada Labour Code deprived the Ontario Labour Relations Board of jurisdiction to determine its own constitutional jurisdiction.
The Board held that Parliament lacks the constitutional authority to prevent a provincial tribunal from determining its own jurisdiction, as labour relations is a matter of exclusive, not shared, jurisdiction.
The Board also denied a request to adjourn the proceedings pending a potential application for judicial review, noting the lengthy ongoing nature of the hearings.
Matter adjourned on agreement of the parties.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the matter to August 29, 2001, on agreement of the parties.
The responding party was directed to post the decision for thirty days.
Board directs parties to agree on scheduling and dismisses motion to dismiss for lack of prima facie case.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board addressed scheduling issues for multiple applications to be heard together.
The Board directed the parties to consult and agree on a date for preliminary motions, noting frustration with the parties' inability to find mutually acceptable dates.
The Board also dismissed a request to dismiss one of the applications for failure to plead a prima facie case, citing the novelty of the fact situation.
Application adjourned sine die on consent for up to one year.
The parties 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.
Motion to dismiss non-construction employer application denied; applicant permitted to amend misidentified party names.
The applicant, the City of Kitchener, applied under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding parties' bargaining rights, claiming it is a non-construction employer.
The responding unions brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing it did not disclose a prima facie case and was not filed in compliance with the Board's Rules of Procedure due to the misidentification of parties.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding the application pleaded sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case.
The Board also relieved against the strict application of the rules regarding the misidentification of parties, finding it was done in good faith with no prejudice, and ordered the applicant to file an amended application with the correct names.
Minister has authority to appoint conciliation officer for non-ICI sector work under provincial agreement.
The Minister of Labour referred two questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding the authority to appoint a conciliation officer for a collective agreement between the applicant union and the responding employer.
The employer argued that it was bound by the provincial agreement negotiated by the employer bargaining agency and that a separate conciliation officer was redundant.
The Board advised that the Minister has the authority to appoint a conciliation officer, but only for the purpose of assisting the parties in renewing the portion of the collective agreement that applies to work outside the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, as the authority to bargain for the ICI sector is vested in the designated bargaining agencies.
Application withdrawn without prejudice at the request of the applicant.
The applicant requested to withdraw its application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn without prejudice to any position taken by any party.
Memorandum of Agreement found to be a valid collective agreement incorporating terms of other agreements by reference.
The Board considered whether a Memorandum of Agreement between Tyger Construction Inc. and the Labourers' International Union of North America (OPDC) constituted a valid collective agreement.
The Carpenters' Union had applied for certification, and the OPDC argued its agreement was a bar.
The Board determined that the Memorandum of Agreement was a valid collective agreement.
It found that the agreement incorporated by reference the terms and conditions of other collective agreements for non-ICI work, but did not make Tyger a party to those other separate collective agreements.
The Board concluded that the OPDC holds valid bargaining rights for construction labourers as defined in the agreement.
Board directs responding party to produce photocopies of documents within one business day.
The applicant union alleged that the responding party employer failed to comply with previous Board directions regarding document production.
The Board directed the responding party to deliver legible photocopies of the ordered documents to the applicant's counsel within one business day, with the applicant to pay $0.25 per page.
The Board also set out a procedure for requesting and objecting to the production of additional documents, urging counsel to resolve problems rather than create them.
Applications withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
The applicant, Coca-Cola Bottling Company, requested to withdraw its applications against the responding unions and individuals.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the applications were withdrawn.
Board authorized release of grievance funds held in trust pursuant to parties' without-prejudice agreement.
The Board authorized the release of funds held in trust arising from a grievance referral to arbitration.
The applicant union and the intervenor reached a without-prejudice agreement regarding the distribution of the funds.
The Board ordered the monies distributed to Global Benefits for provincial remittances and to the applicant for local remittances, with accrued interest divided pro-rata.
Board directed parties to file written submissions regarding voter eligibility in a decertification application.
In a decertification application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, a dispute remained regarding the status of two individuals who cast ballots in the representation vote.
The Board declined to schedule a hearing in Toronto without further particulars, noting that one individual had been off work for 12 months due to a workplace injury.
The Board directed the parties to file written submissions detailing the basis for their positions on whether the individuals should be considered members of the bargaining unit.
Employer ordered to pay $4,492.18 in vacation pay damages following default in grievance referral.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to pay vacation pay as required by the collective agreement.
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 responding party was deemed to have accepted all facts stated in the application.
The Board found the employer violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $4,492.18 in damages plus filing fees.
Certification application dismissed after union failed to obtain majority support in representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification.
Following a representation vote, not more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were cast in opposition to the responding party employer.
As the union failed to obtain majority support, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification and cancelled previously set meeting and hearing dates.
Certification application dismissed after representation vote failed to secure majority support.
The applicant union filed a certification application.
Following a representation vote, the Board found that not more than 50% of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were cast in opposition to the responding party.
As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Board dismissed the application and directed the destruction of the ballots after 30 days.
The Board also drew the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, regarding future applications for certification.