Gail Misra

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act more than two years after the order was issued.

The employer requested an extension of time to file the application, arguing it was unaware the order was being enforced while the Employment Standards Officer attempted to negotiate a settlement.

The Board found that the employer was explicitly advised in July 1999 that the order would be enforced and was given a further deadline of October 1999, which it also missed.

Finding no good reason to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit, the Board dismissed the application as untimely.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed an Employment Standards Officer's decision regarding vacation pay for employees on pregnancy and parental leave.

The employer's policy allowed employees to accrue vacation time during such leaves but did not provide vacation pay for that accrued time, as the leaves were unpaid.

The Board found that the employer's vacation policy provided a greater right or benefit than the minimum standards in the Employment Standards Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that while the Act requires the accrual of service and vacation time during pregnancy and parental leaves, it does not require employers to provide vacation pay for time accrued during these unpaid leaves.

The Officer's Order to Pay was rescinded.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay, which had found that the employee was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The employee was terminated at the end of her three-month probationary period.

The employer argued the termination was due to poor work performance, specifically typographical errors, and that the decision was made before it learned of the pregnancy.

The Board found the employer's witnesses credible and accepted documentary evidence showing the termination decision and paperwork were initiated days before the employee disclosed her pregnancy.

The Board concluded the termination was not a reprisal for pregnancy and rescinded the Order to Pay.

The employer appealed Orders to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer regarding unauthorized deductions from the wages of three young summer employees for alleged cash shortages.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employer had no authority to make the deductions, as the blanket authorizations relied upon did not meet the requirements of Regulation 325 under the Employment Standards Act.

Furthermore, the Board found the employer's accounting documentation unreliable and insufficient to substantiate the alleged shortages.

The appeals were dismissed and the Orders to Pay were upheld.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging that the responding parties assigned mechanical work on the Kingsway Retirement Residence project to a non-union contractor.

The parties sought a sector determination from the Ontario Labour Relations Board to decide whether the project fell within the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector or the residential sector.

After reviewing the end-use of the facility, which included significant medical and care services, common dining, and 24-hour nursing staff, the Board concluded that the retirement residence was institutional in nature.

Consequently, the Board determined that the construction project fell within the ICI sector of the construction industry.

The applicant union was certified to represent employees of a personnel business working at a social service agency.

The agency terminated its contract with the personnel business and directly hired all the employees, maintaining the same operations, location, and clientele.

The union argued this constituted a sale of a business under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the personnel business's essential asset was its specialized workforce, and the transfer of this workforce to the agency constituted a sale of a part of a business.

Consequently, the union's bargaining rights continued with the agency as the successor employer.

The applicants sought to suspend an occupational health and safety inspector's orders requiring three workers to complete specific common core and underground construction training before working underground.

The orders were issued following a fatal accident at the Copper Cliff South Mine.

The Board applied the three-factor test for suspending orders and found that suspending the training requirements could potentially endanger worker safety.

Given the minor prejudice to the applicants, who would only need one or two days to complete the training, and the unclear merits of the appeal, the Board dismissed the suspension request.

The applicants sought to suspend an occupational health and safety inspector's orders requiring three workers to complete specific common core and underground construction training before working underground.

The orders were issued following a fatal accident at a mine.

Applying the three-part test for suspending orders, the Board found that suspending the orders could potentially endanger worker safety, the prejudice to the applicants was minor as the training would only take one or two days, and the strength of the appeal could not be determined without evidence on the merits.

The suspension applications were dismissed.

The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that a newly formed non-union plumbing business was under common control and direction with a defunct unionized plumbing business.

The responding parties argued that the personal bankruptcy of the key person severed the common control and direction.

The Board held that the personal bankruptcy did not change the individual's status as a key person or the controlling mind of the businesses.

The Board found the businesses were associated or related and under common control and direction, and exercised its discretion to issue a single employer declaration.

The union alleged that the employer engaged in an illegal lock-out and bargained in bad faith.

During negotiations, the employer's newly appointed representative signed a document resolving all outstanding issues, subject only to the employer president's approval of the language.

The employer subsequently tabled new, substantive proposals.

The Board found that the employer's representative had the authority to conclude an agreement and that the employer bargained in bad faith by reneging on the agreed terms.

However, because the language approval step was not completed, no collective agreement was finalized, and the application alleging an unlawful lock-out was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent an all-employee bargaining unit at a newly formed Crown corporation.

The intervenor union argued that the proposed unit was inappropriate because it would dismantle pre-existing bargaining structures where the intervenor represented supervisory and professional employees.

The Board held that due to the statutory exclusion of successor rights in this privatization, there were no pre-existing bargaining structures binding the new employer.

Applying its standard test, the Board found that an all-employee bargaining unit was appropriate and that the employees shared a sufficient community of interest.

The applicant employer sought to suspend an occupational health and safety inspector's order requiring workers operating material handling equipment to wear protective footwear, pending an appeal.

The Board applied the three-part test for suspending an order and found insufficient reason to grant the suspension.

The applicant failed to file submissions demonstrating a strong prima facie case, lack of hazard, or prejudice, while the Ministry established a potential hazard to worker safety.

The application to suspend the order was dismissed.

The employer and the intervenor union sought reconsideration of a Board decision that set the voter eligibility date for a representation vote as the date of the applicant union's certification application.

The employer argued that 27 employees hired after the application date should be permitted to vote, as they had been in a previous vote involving the intervenor.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the employer had been explicitly invited to make submissions on voter eligibility prior to the vote being ordered but had failed to do so.

The Board concluded there was no reason to depart from its normal practice of using the application date for voter eligibility, and ordered that the 27 segregated ballots not be counted.

A certificate was issued to the applicant union.

The union applied for certification to represent homecare workers (homemakers) at the Huntsville District Memorial Hospital.

The hospital argued that the homemakers were independent contractors and therefore not employees under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board applied the factors for assessing dependent contractor status, including the use of substitutes, ownership of tools, entrepreneurial activity, and integration into the employer's operations.

The Board concluded that the homemakers were in a contractual relationship of dependency with the hospital, making them dependent contractors and thus employees for the purposes of the Act.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The applicants sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the union.

The union alleged that the employer initiated the application and engaged in threats, coercion, or intimidation, contrary to section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that the employer had significantly and influentially involved itself in the initiation and support of the termination application, including providing financial support, facilitating the collection of petition signatures during working hours, and providing transportation to the representation vote.

The Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the application and ordered the ballots destroyed.

The union applied to the Board for determinations regarding unresolved issues in negotiating an essential services agreement under the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1993.

The Board held it lacked jurisdiction to prohibit the employer from using replacement workers during a strike or lock-out, given the statutory amendments in section 41.1.

However, the Board ordered the parties to negotiate in good faith regarding the terms and conditions of employment for essential service workers.

The Board also directed the parties to negotiate protocols for situations where a designated essential service worker is absent or exercises the right to refuse unsafe work.

The union referred a construction industry grievance to arbitration, alleging the employer improperly laid off three employees and failed to recall them following a job site accident.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the grievance was untimely and failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that while the grievance was filed late, the employer waived its right to object to timeliness by engaging in settlement discussions without reserving its rights.

The Board also held that the collective agreement contained no right of recall, dismissing that aspect of the grievance, but found a prima facie case existed regarding the union's claim that the layoff itself was arbitrary or in bad faith.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Brock University.

Prior to the hearing, the parties resolved all matters in dispute.

Several objecting employees filed statements of desire raising concerns about the adequacy of notice for the representation vote.

The Board found that the employer had posted notices in multiple locations five days prior to the vote, satisfying the statutory requirements under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in favour of the union, the Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had negotiated an agreement with the employer to grant seniority to temporary employees, which displaced existing members on the seniority list.

The union failed to inform the membership of this specific change and its implications prior to the ratification vote.

The Board found that the union's failure to provide sufficient information to allow for informed debate on a matter significantly affecting job security was arbitrary and constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation.

However, the Board found no breach regarding the union's subsequent withdrawal of a grievance on the matter.

The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

Subsequently, an employee filed a termination application.

The employer then accepted the union's proposed collective agreement, which was ratified by the employees.

The Board held that the first contract application was moot because a collective agreement had been reached.

The Board exercised its discretion to order a new representation vote on the termination application, as the employees had now experienced the collective agreement and could better gauge their wishes.