J. G. Knight

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 proper wages and provide Records of Employment in a timely manner.

The employer failed to file a response or notice of intent to defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the employer was deemed to have accepted the facts stated in the application.

The Board found the employer violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay outstanding wages, waiting time penalties, and the filing fee, and to provide the outstanding Record of Employment.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and a subsequent unfair labour practice complaint against the responding employer and intervenor union.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving all outstanding issues, including withdrawing challenges to voter eligibility and the section 8.1 challenge.

The unfair labour practice complaint was withdrawn.

Following the settlement, the ballots from the representation vote were counted.

As not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board dismissed the application for certification.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

Having regard to the settlement, the Board issued declarations that the responding corporate entities and individual were related employers and bound by the relevant collective agreements.

The application against Marsand Contracting Inc. and the grievance referral were withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party employer breached the collective agreement by employing non-union workers.

The responding party failed to file a response or 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 breached the collective agreement and ordered it to pay damages for unpaid wages and benefits, plus the filing fee.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party failed to remit fringe benefits on time.

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 responding party liable for late payment damages and directed payment of $1,256.00 plus interest and the filing fee.

The responding party, Technica Group Inc., requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because its principal was getting married and hosting family from Italy.

The applicant union opposed the request.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the adjournment, noting that the request was made only a week before the hearing despite notice having been given six weeks prior.

The Board found that the principal's inconvenience did not constitute compelling grounds for an adjournment, especially given the late notice and the potential for significant delay in rescheduling.

The applicant union challenged a proposed project agreement under section 163.1(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing it would result in a disproportionate reduction in total wages and benefits for its members compared to other approving unions.

The Board found that the change in the standard work week from 36 to 40 hours, combined with a 5% base wage reduction, disproportionately affected the applicant's members.

The Board amended the proposed project agreement to increase the base hourly wage rate for the applicant's members to 100.22% of their prevailing provincial agreement rate, ensuring their proportional wage reduction matched the largest reduction of an approving union, and declared the amended agreement in force.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

On the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die, to be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made within one year.

The Carpenters requested an adjournment of three scheduled hearing days for a certification application and an unfair labour practice complaint due to counsel unavailability.

The employer consented, but the Labourers objected.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the adjournment request, noting its policy to only grant adjournments on consent except in exceptional circumstances.

The Board emphasized that certification applications must be dealt with expeditiously, and granting the adjournment would delay the hearing until December 2001, which was deemed unreasonable.

The responding parties requested that the applications under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 be dismissed against Spectrum Construction Services Inc., Columbia Chrome, and Cloutier's Machine Shop Limited on the grounds of insufficient particularization.

The Board found that the allegations were sufficient to proceed, given section 69(13) of the Act.

The Board amended the name of one responding party to Spectrum Construction and directed the applicant to serve the applications on that company.

The Board also directed the responding parties to produce all relevant documents.

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 application would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed.

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 post a bond for repeated late payments of contributions as required by the collective agreement.

The responding party failed to file a response or notice of intent to defend.

Proceeding by way of default, the Board accepted the applicant's allegations as true, declared the employer in violation of the collective agreement, and ordered the employer to deliver a bond or certified cheque in the amount of $47,217.95, plus costs.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer repeatedly made late payments of contributions and failed to post a required bond.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

Proceeding by default, the Board deemed the facts in the application accepted, found the employer violated the collective agreement, and ordered the employer to post a $50,000 bond and pay costs.

The applicant applied under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the responding parties.

The parties agreed to extend the time for the responding parties to file their reply.

The Board granted the extension, ordering the reply to be filed by August 20, 2001, or at least seven days before the hearing date.

The responding party union requested an extension of time to file its response to a work assignment application under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, citing vacation schedules.

The Board granted the extension to August 20, 2001, noting that a consultation had not yet been scheduled.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

On the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed was made within one year.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party employer violated the provincial collective agreement by subcontracting work to non-union contractors.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement wherein the employer acknowledged the violation and agreed to pay $5,000 in damages, which included outstanding benefit fund contributions.

The employer also agreed to remove the non-union subcontractors from the job site.

The Board issued a consent order incorporating the Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant union requested to amend its name in the title of proceedings, having mistakenly included 'District Council 46' in the original application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under section 112 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, finding the mistake was made in good faith, and amended the applicant's name to 'International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, Local 1891'.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than 50% of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the parties agreed on the correct name of the responding party.

The Board ordered the issuance of two certificates pursuant to section 160(1) of the Act: one for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, and another for all other sectors in the specified geographic areas.

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 apply proper rates of pay under the collective agreement.

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 violated the collective agreement, ordered it to cease and desist, and awarded $16,172.27 in damages plus $214.00 in statutory costs.

A request for legal costs was denied due to insufficient information.