Gail Misra

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to properly represent her regarding her hours of work and a disciplinary suspension.

The applicant, a full-time Kitchen Helper, claimed she was entitled to 40 hours of work per week and that less senior employees were receiving more hours.

The union investigated the complaints, met with the employer, and concluded that the other employees were either in a different classification (apprentice) or working a different schedule without overtime pay.

The Board found that the union thoroughly investigated the complaints, reasonably concluded there was no breach of the collective agreement, and adequately explained its decision to the applicant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying her claim for termination pay.

The applicant took time off for an unspecified illness, after which the employer advertised her position and issued a cheque marked 'Separation Pay'.

The employer argued it had not terminated her employment and was holding her position open.

The Board found that a reasonable person would have surmised they were dismissed, concluding the employer effectively terminated the employment without notice.

The employer was ordered to pay two weeks' pay in lieu of notice.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the responding union breached section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union requested that the Board dismiss the application without a hearing, arguing that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Board reviewed the application and concluded that, assuming all allegations were true and provable, the applicant had pled a prima facie case.

The union's request to dismiss the application was therefore declined.

The Board previously upheld an Employment Standards Officer's finding that the responding party was an employee entitled to vacation and public holiday pay.

The applicant employer disputed the quantum of the Order to Pay but failed to file submissions by the Board's deadline.

Consequently, the Board confirmed the Order to Pay in the amount of $2,726.10 and directed the Director of Employment Standards to remit the funds to the employee.

The applicant, a probationary employee who was terminated after a workplace accident, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

He alleged the union failed to properly represent him in his grievance, WSIB claim, and health and safety complaint.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding no prima facie case of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The union had filed a grievance, represented the applicant at multiple stages, and reasonably decided not to proceed to arbitration given his probationary status and the employer's prior dissatisfaction with his performance.

The Board also noted the union had no duty to represent him in WSIB or Ministry of Labour matters.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly laid off seven Toronto-based employees out of seniority order, arguing that less senior employees working in Sudbury (International territory) should have been laid off first.

The employer maintained that the northern employees were outside Local 50's jurisdiction and therefore not subject to bumping by Toronto members.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement's seniority and layoff provisions must be read in conjunction with its jurisdictional clauses.

The Board concluded that Local 50's jurisdiction and the associated employment preferences do not extend into International territory, meaning Toronto members could not exercise seniority to bump northern employees.

The applicant sought to amend its application to add Kawartha Quality Care, ParaMed Health Services, and Bayshore Healthcare as responding parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, noting that while it was late in the process, refusing the amendment would likely lead to parallel proceedings and a waste of resources since no hearing on the merits had commenced.

The Board set timelines for the new responding parties to file responses and make submissions on an existing 'no prima facie case' motion.

The applicant requested reconsideration of the Board's decision declining to issue a pre-hearing production order in a construction industry grievance arbitration.

The Board found that the applicant's reliance on jurisprudence regarding sections 69 and 1(4) applications was misplaced, as those provisions place the onus on responding parties.

The Board concluded that the reconsideration application added nothing new to the legal arguments already considered and denied the request.

The applicant employer filed a request for review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act approximately five and a half years after the order was issued.

The employer claimed he could not afford to pay the requisite monies into trust at the time, and only paid the outstanding amount after his wages were garnished.

Before deciding whether to grant an extension of time for the exceptionally late application, the Board directed the Ministry of Labour and the employee to file submissions.

The applicant requested the cancellation of a scheduled hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board cancelled the hearing and ordered that the application be dealt with in conjunction with another Board file.

The applicant filed a request for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision one day after the 45-day statutory deadline.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for filing, noting that the applicant had mailed the appeal prior to the deadline.

The applicant employer appealed 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 according to the settlement, with $650 returned to the employer, $575 paid to the employee, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file its response.

With the consent of the applicants, the Board granted the request and extended the filing deadline to August 25, 2000.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Following a previous decision, the parties settled all matters in dispute and filed Minutes of Settlement.

The Board terminated the proceeding.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The responding party requested an order requiring the applicant to clarify and abbreviate the application, and sought an extension of time to file its response.

The Board found the application sufficiently clear to outline the reprisal allegations and declined to order clarification.

The Board granted the responding party an extension of time to file its response.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the applications sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the applications will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant union requested an order for the production of documents prior to the commencement of a hearing into an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the responding parties to produce the requested documents in their possession, care, or control.

The Board declined to order the responding parties to provide particulars, but directed that any documents relating to those matters be produced.

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 an employee for 53 hours of work.

The responding party failed to file a response or 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 bound by the provincial collective agreement and ordered it to pay the unpaid wages, costs, and filing fees.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against McLarens Toplis Canada and the Ministry of Labour following a settlement reached between the parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against the responding employer and the Ministry of Labour.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave for the withdrawal, and the application was withdrawn.