Union certification granted following a successful representation vote among construction labourers.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent construction labourers employed by 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 granted the application and directed that a certificate issue.
Application for review of Employment Standards Officer's decision dismissed for untimeliness.
The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.
The application was filed beyond the 45-day statutory time limit.
Despite being invited to provide reasons for the delay, the applicant failed to address the untimeliness or offer any basis for an extension.
The Board dismissed the application as untimely.
Board directed the counting of ballots in a representation vote based on parties' agreement.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the Manager of Field Services to arrange for the counting of ballots cast in a representation vote, following an agreement between the parties.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant sought to withdraw the application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
The applicant requested to withdraw its application against the responding parties.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Application withdrawn on agreement of the parties.
The applicant filed a complaint against the responding party.
The matter was withdrawn in accordance with the agreement of the parties.
Application for review of Order to Pay terminated following parties' Minutes of Settlement.
The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.
The employer and the employee entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to the disbursement of funds held in trust by the Director.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the funds disbursed in accordance with the settlement and terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.
Representation vote ordered in construction industry certification application after employer failed to file response.
The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.
Based on the information provided, the Board found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.
The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.
The applicant sought to withdraw its application against the responding party.
Union granted leave to withdraw certification application after representation vote.
The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, after a representation vote had been held.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and directed the parties' attention to section 7(10) of the Act regarding potential bars to future applications.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed where union reasonably relied on legal counsel's advice to withdraw grievances.
The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by withdrawing his grievances concerning a denied promotion and his subsequent termination.
The union had sought a legal opinion, which concluded that the grievances were unlikely to succeed at arbitration due to the applicant's short tenure, substantial disciplinary record, and complaints from fellow employees.
The Board found that the union turned its mind to the grievances, considered relevant information, and did not act in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
The application was dismissed.
Duty of fair representation application dismissed due to excessive and unexplained delay.
The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation regarding overtime assignments.
The union sought to dismiss the application for delay, as the events occurred over a year prior and a related civil action was dismissed a year before this application was filed.
The Board found the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and exercised its discretion to dismiss the application without inquiring further into the merits.
Request for reconsideration denied as it was merely an attempt to reargue the case.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Board's decision dated August 16, 2001.
The Board noted its broad discretion to reconsider decisions under section 21.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, but emphasized that it requires good reasons to do so, such as an obvious error, new evidence, or important policy issues.
The Board found that the applicant's request was merely an attempt to reargue the case and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.
The application for reconsideration was denied.
Applicant directed to respond to union's preliminary objections in duty of fair representation complaint.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union after it declined to advance her suspension grievance to arbitration.
The union and the employer filed detailed responses raising additional facts and seeking to dismiss the application for delay and failure to make out a prima facie case.
The Board directed the applicant to file written submissions responding to the facts and preliminary objections raised by the responding parties within 15 days, failing which she would be deemed to agree with their facts.
Applicant directed to file full particulars of alleged duty of fair representation breach.
The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The union requested the matter be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case or, in the alternative, that the applicant be required to file full particulars.
The Board directed the applicant to file full and complete particulars of the alleged breach and to address the union's arguments for dismissal.
Application adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.
The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.
The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the application would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.
Board directed a related file to be scheduled for hearing with three other matters.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that a fourth related matter be listed for hearing alongside three other files involving the same parties, which were already scheduled to be heard together.
The applicant sought to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.