Request to limit witness production at Toronto hearing denied; responding party must utilize scheduled days.
The responding party in a union certification application sought to be relieved of its obligation to produce its witnesses at a hearing scheduled in Toronto, proposing to bring only one witness from Ottawa.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, noting its policy that the first two days of hearings for parties located more than a three-hour drive from Toronto must be held in Toronto.
As the responding party bore the onus, it was responsible for ensuring sufficient witnesses were present to make full use of the scheduled hearing days.
Grievance application adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.
The applicant union filed a grievance against the responding party.
On consent of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.
Board granted responding party's request to extend the deadline for filing a response.
The responding party requested an extension of time to file a response.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and extended the deadline to November 16, 2000.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding employers.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
Application for review terminated because applicant's cheque for payment into trust bounced.
The applicant filed an application for review of an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act and tendered a cheque for payment into trust.
The Director of Employment Standards advised the Board that the cheque did not clear the applicant's account.
The Board held that under subsection 68(7) of the Act, an application for review is not properly made unless the required amount is paid into trust.
As the monies were not paid into trust, the application could not proceed and was terminated.
The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.
Applications withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant, Sifto Canada Inc., sought to withdraw its applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The Board granted leave and the applications were withdrawn.
Board ordered disbursement of funds held in trust in accordance with parties' Minutes of Settlement.
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 Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $1,700 paid to the employee, $500.02 returned to the employer, and the $220 administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Application for review terminated due to employer's failure to file correct forms.
The employer sought to review an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act but failed to file the application on the correct form.
The Board provided the correct forms and granted a 10-day extension.
The employer did not submit the required forms within the extended time limit.
Consequently, the Board terminated the matter.
Request for further particulars in construction industry grievance referral denied as pleadings were sufficient.
The responding party requested an order for further particulars regarding two construction industry grievances referred to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board found that the applicant had sufficiently identified the breached collective agreement articles and the relevant time periods.
The Board declined to order further pleadings regarding the specific amount of damages sought at this early stage and dismissed the responding party's request.
Application for review of an Order to Pay terminated due to employer's failure to file correct forms.
The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued against it under the Employment Standards Act.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board notified the employer that its application was not filed on the correct forms and provided a 10-day extension to rectify the deficiency.
The employer failed to submit the required forms within the extended time limit.
Application for review terminated after applicant failed to correct procedural filing defect.
The applicant filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision by facsimile, which failed to comply with the Board's Rules of Procedure.
The Board notified the applicant of the defect and provided ten days to refile the application properly.
The applicant failed to refile within the allotted time, and the Board terminated the matter.
Style of cause amended to reflect the correct name of the responding party union.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision amending the style of cause in an application to reflect the correct name of the responding party union, changing it from 'Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union, Local 655' to 'Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union'.
A new certificate was issued to reflect the correct name of the bargaining agent.
The Board issued a corrected certificate to reflect the proper name of the bargaining agent.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision to correct an error in a previously issued certificate regarding the name of the bargaining agent in an application involving Timiskaming Child and Family Service, the Ontario Public Service Employees' Union, Local 665, and the United Steelworkers of America, Local 6409.
A new certificate was issued to reflect the correct name.
Request to adjourn hearing and consolidate arguments denied.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for November 1, 2000, and asked the Board to hear arguments on both this file and another related file.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, directing the parties to proceed with the hearing as scheduled and as outlined in a previous decision.
Union certified as bargaining agent following successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for cleaning and maintenance employees of the responding party.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the union and ordered a certificate to issue.
Adjournment request denied; hearing to proceed as scheduled on a single file.
The applicant requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for November 1, 2000, and asked that arguments be heard on this file and another file together.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the adjournment request and directed that the hearing proceed as scheduled, dealing only with the present application.
Section 69 sale of business applications dismissed; prima facie case found for section 1(4) related employer applications.
The applicants, SEIU and ONA, brought applications under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the introduction of a managed competition process by Durham Access to Care resulted in a sale of a business and that the service providers were related employers.
The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applications for failing to establish a prima facie case.
The Board dismissed the section 69 applications, finding that the transfer of work through a competitive bidding process did not constitute a sale of a business.
However, the Board found that the applicants had pled a prima facie case for a related employer declaration under section 1(4) and directed the parties to make submissions on whether the Board should exercise its discretion to grant the declaration.
Extension of time granted to review Order to Pay after four-year delay in enforcement.
The applicant employer sought an extension of time to file an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.
The applicant had contacted the Employment Standards Officer immediately after the Order was issued, but no further action was taken for four years until a collection agency approached the applicant.
The Ministry of Labour supported the extension request, and the employee did not oppose it.
The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Act to extend the time for filing.