John Morgan Lewis

The applicant sought to review an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.

The application was filed more than six months after the 45-day statutory deadline.

The applicant requested an extension of time, explaining the delay was due to his failure to check his mail at his parents' home for months at a time.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time, holding that the applicant must accept the risks associated with failing to check his mail on a timely basis.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The employer applied to review an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for unpaid commissions and vacation pay to a former sales executive.

The claimant argued she was entitled to commissions on contracts she secured before resigning, even though the employer only received fees after implementing recommendations post-departure.

The Board rescinded the Order to Pay, finding the claimant's contribution in merely securing the initial contracts was too remote and preliminary to confer entitlement to commissions on the fees ultimately received.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding employer failed to make timely remittances to various health, welfare, and pension funds.

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

The Board issued a consent order declaring the employer bound by the collective agreement, declaring it had violated the agreement, and directing the employer to pay $10,599.58 in outstanding remittances and $741.87 in liquidated damages.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer failed to make timely remittances to various health, welfare, and pension funds.

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

The Board issued a consent order declaring the employer bound by the collective agreement, finding a violation for unpaid remittances, and directing the employer to pay $15,372.65 in outstanding remittances and $1,471.17 in liquidated damages.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for final and binding determination.

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

The Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding party employer was bound by the collective agreement and had violated it by failing to make timely remittances to various funds.

The Board directed the employer to pay $28,153.09 in remittances and $1,356.19 in liquidated damages.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement wherein the responding employer acknowledged being bound by the collective agreement and failing to make timely remittances.

The Board issued a consent order pursuant to section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, declaring the employer bound by the agreement and directing the payment of $8,489.85 in outstanding remittances and $474.50 in liquidated damages.

The applicant sought to withdraw its application against the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant union sought to suspend an inspector's order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act requiring that brackets supporting electrical cable trays be installed by certified electricians or registered apprentices.

The applicant argued the work was structural and fell within the ironworkers' trade, characterizing the issue as a jurisdictional dispute rather than a safety concern.

The Ministry of Labour did not oppose the suspension.

Applying the Hamilton-Wentworth factors, the Board found that suspending the order would not endanger worker safety and that the applicant's members were prejudiced by being prevented from working.

The Board suspended the order pending the disposition of the appeal.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed well after the 45-day statutory time limit.

The Board invited the applicant to provide reasons for the delay or why an extension should be granted, but received no reply.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time period and terminated the application.

The applicant employer sought the suspension of four health and safety orders issued by a Ministry of Labour inspector regarding the training and use of force policies for its security staff.

The Board applied the test for suspending an order, noting the rebuttable presumption that an inspector's order is correct and the high threshold required when worker safety is at issue.

Finding that suspending the orders could endanger worker safety and that the applicant had not established a strong prima facie case for a successful appeal, the Board dismissed the request for suspension.

In an application for certification, the intervenor challenged the eligibility of three individuals to vote, arguing they were employed contrary to the collective agreement.

The applicant sought an order requiring the intervenor to ensure the attendance of these individuals at the upcoming hearing.

The Board denied the request, ruling that under Information Bulletin No. 9, the party asserting that an individual should be in the bargaining unit bears the responsibility for ensuring their attendance, regardless of who bears the burden of proof on the specific challenge.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer and the respondent employee subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement, agreeing that the employer would pay the employee $2,000 directly and that the funds held in trust by the Director would be returned to the employer and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Board ordered the trust funds disbursed in accordance with the settlement, subject to any objection by the Ministry of Labour, and terminated the application.

The applicant employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The employer and the affected employee subsequently entered into confidential Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Employment Standards Act, subject to any written objection from the Ministry of Labour within 10 days.

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.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and an affiliated bargaining agent.

Based on the application and membership evidence, the Board determined that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

The parties requested an extension for the filing of submissions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to August 10, 2001.

The applicant attempted to apply for a review under the Employment Standards Act by sending correspondence to the Board.

The Registrar informed the applicant that the appeal must be filed on Form A-69 and provided a 10-day deadline to comply.

The applicant failed to submit the properly completed form.

Consequently, the Board terminated the proceeding.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote directed by the Board, not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application and directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Act regarding the effect on any subsequent application filed within one year.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, but not more than 50% of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and noted the potential application of the one-year bar under section 10(3) of the Act for any subsequent applications.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of at least forty percent in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

Due to the job site being inactive, the Board directed the Registrar to mail the notice of vote to the employees' addresses provided by the responding party.