Board scheduled oral arguments on section 1(4) related employer discretion to begin January 23, 2001.
The Board issued a procedural decision regarding the scheduling of oral arguments on whether it should exercise its discretion to make a section 1(4) related employer declaration.
Due to difficulties in setting hearing dates prior to January 23, 2001, the Board directed that arguments on this issue will commence on January 23, 2001, and continue on previously set dates.
Union certification granted following successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.
Application withdrawn with leave and arrest warrant cancelled.
The applicant requested to withdraw its application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, withdrew the application with leave, cancelled the scheduled hearing date, and cancelled the arrest warrant previously issued for Danny Bonotto.
Reconsideration of duty of fair representation dismissal denied; new human rights allegations cannot be raised post-hearing.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision dismissing her duty of fair representation complaint against the union.
She argued that she was disadvantaged by a language barrier, lacked counsel at the hearing, and that the Board failed to address human rights issues.
The Board granted an extension of time to file the request but dismissed the reconsideration on the merits, finding that the applicant fully participated in the hearing, that human rights allegations were not raised in her original pleadings, and that the Board's jurisdiction in a duty of fair representation consultation differs from that of an arbitrator.
Grievance referral resolved by Memorandum of Agreement; responding party ordered to pay $2,000 in damages.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement.
The Board declared that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement and had violated it.
The Board ordered the responding party to pay $2,000 in damages to the applicant.
Board issues consent order for $2,160.13 in damages following grievance referral.
The Board issued declarations and directions on consent, finding that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement, had violated it, and ordering the payment of $2,160.13 in damages.
Reconsideration denied; Board lacks discretion to extend time for paying order to pay into trust.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision terminating its application for review of an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act.
The application was terminated because the applicant failed to pay the amount of the order into trust.
The applicant requested an extension of time to pay the funds into trust.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to reconsider the decision, holding that its discretion under subsection 68(4) is to extend the time for applying for a review, not to extend the time for paying monies into trust.
An application for review is not complete unless the monies have been paid into trust.
Grievance resolved at hearing; responding party agreed to pay outstanding benefits.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
At the outset of the hearing, the parties advised the Board that they had resolved all matters in dispute.
The Board noted the responding party's agreement to pay all outstanding benefits payments to the applicant by December 15, 2000.
Board issued an arrest warrant for a witness who failed to attend a grievance hearing.
The applicant referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
When the responding party failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, the applicant requested an arrest warrant for a principal of the responding party.
The Board found that the principal had been properly served with a summons and conduct money, and that his presence and the requested documents were material to the ends of justice.
Pursuant to its authority under the Labour Relations Act, the Board issued an arrest warrant to compel the witness's attendance at the continuation of the hearing.
Arrest warrant issued for responding party's principal who failed to attend hearing after being summoned.
The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
A principal of the responding party was properly served with a summons and conduct money but failed to attend the scheduled hearing.
The applicant requested an arrest warrant.
The Board, exercising its powers under sections 48(12)(d) and 111(2)(c) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, issued a warrant for the arrest of the witness to compel his attendance and the production of required documents at the continuation of the hearing.
Application adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.
The applicant union and responding employer 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.
Grievance referral adjourned sine die on consent for up to one year.
The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral 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 neither party requests to proceed.
The Board directed the Registrar to set hearing dates following the resolution of a related matter.
The Board directed the Registrar to consult with the parties to set two hearing dates, following the issuance of a decision in a related matter (Board File No. 3227-99-R) that the parties had been awaiting.
Related employer application dismissed as competitive bidding process did not constitute labour relations mischief.
The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that the responding party service providers and the community care access centre constituted a single employer.
The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that even if the prerequisites of section 1(4) were met, the Board should not exercise its discretion to grant the declaration.
The Board agreed, finding that the loss of work by the unionized service provider was due to a government-mandated competitive bidding process, not a scheme to defeat bargaining rights.
The Board concluded there was no labour relations mischief to remedy and dismissed the application without a hearing on the merits.
OLRB directs opening of sealed ballot box after employer withdraws objections in certification application.
In an application for certification, the employer withdrew its position regarding 'build up' and section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
With no remaining issues in dispute and the applicant agreeing to the responding party's proposed bargaining unit, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed a Labour Relations Officer to meet with the parties to open the sealed ballot box and count the ballots cast in the representation vote.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union acted reasonably in handling grievances after employer closure.
The applicants, former employees of Hanmer Bus Lines, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against their union, CUPE.
They alleged the union acted arbitrarily or in bad faith by failing to take numerous grievances to arbitration, failing to pursue termination pay after the employer closed its business, ending strike pay, and other internal union matters.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had gone above and beyond its duty by paying strike pay for 22 months even after the employer ceased operations, and that it reasonably held grievances in abeyance pending a lead case and the subsequent closure of the business.
Provincial labour complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the employer was federally regulated.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under the provincial Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The union objected on the basis that the employer, Ogden Ground Services at Pearson International Airport, was federally regulated and certified under the Canada Labour Code.
The Board found that the employer was a business subject to federal regulation for labour relations purposes.
As a result, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and dismissed the application.
Union certification granted for library pages following a successful representation vote.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of pages employed by the Brantford Public Library Board.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.
Union certified as bargaining agent following successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of technicians employed by the responding party.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent 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 defined the appropriate bargaining unit.
Certification application dismissed after union failed to win majority in representation vote; one-year bar imposed.
A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.
As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.