M. A. Nairn

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The parties agreed on the description of the appropriate bargaining unit.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be taken of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

The applicant, a lead hand, alleged that the trade union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by proposing the deletion of the lead hand premium during collective bargaining.

The applicant argued he was entitled to specific notice of the proposal because it detrimentally affected him.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had objective justification for its proposal due to historical ambiguity regarding the lead hand's duties and friction within the bargaining unit.

The Board held that the union was not required to provide specific, individual notice to members adversely affected by bargaining proposals, provided it did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The applicants referred grievances in the construction industry to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties reached an agreement to adjourn the matter on certain terms, including the production of documents by the responding party and the filing of a response.

The Board issued a consent order incorporating these terms and rescheduled the hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a breach of the union's duty of fair representation under section 74.

A consultation was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear.

The responding party union and the intervenor employer attended and requested that the matter be dismissed.

In the absence of any indication that the applicant intended to pursue the matter, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging the union failed to provide him with its decision on whether to take his grievance to arbitration.

The union responded with a copy of its letter advising it would not proceed to arbitration and requested the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board directed the applicant to advise what remedy remains outstanding and to provide particulars, failing which the application would be dismissed as moot.

The applicant union appealed a Ministry of Labour inspector's field visit report regarding an alleged work refusal by correctional officers over increased night shift patrols.

The union also requested a suspension of the inspector's order under section 61(7) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board dismissed the request for suspension, finding that because the inspector made no order, the remedial relief sought could not properly be obtained through a suspension request.

The main appeal was referred to the Registrar to be listed for hearing.

The applicant appealed an Inspector's order and requested a suspension of the order pending the appeal.

The Ministry of Labour subsequently advised the Board that the order had been rescinded and requested that the matters be terminated.

The Board directed that the proceedings would be deemed terminated without further notice unless a party objected within 10 days.

The applicant employer applied for a review of 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 in accordance with the settlement, with $7,500 paid to the employee, $5,638 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to remit required contributions under the collective agreement.

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 bound by the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $6,160.37 in damages for unpaid contributions and $214.00 in costs.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed a few days late due to a miscommunication between the applicant and its counsel.

The Board granted the extension, noting the short delay and that the application was not frivolous.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into minutes of settlement.

The Board issued a consent order declaring the responding party bound to the collective agreement, declaring a violation, and ordering the responding party to pay $4,600 in damages and legal costs as agreed.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The initial request was improperly filed and returned by the Board.

The employer subsequently filed a proper application, but it was significantly past the 45-day statutory deadline.

The Board declined to extend the time limits for filing, noting the delay and prejudice, and dismissed the application for review.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties filed Minutes of Settlement.

Pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to make an order under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant subsequently requested to withdraw the application.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the matter.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the matter was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed four days after the deadline.

The Board found that the short delay and possible confusion generated by a reference to the filing date in the Employment Standards Officer's letter justified an extension of time.

The deadline was extended, making the application timely, and the file was referred to the Registrar for processing.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging a breach of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding vacation pay entitlement while on long-term disability and after retirement.

The responding trade union sought to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case or due to delay and lack of standing.

The Board directed the applicant to file a written reply to the union's response and clarify the remedy sought before ruling on the motion to dismiss.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that Gibraltor Building Corp. Ltd. and a numbered company were a single employer.

While the Board found that the entities were under common control and carried on related activities in the residential construction industry, it dismissed the application.

The Board concluded that the union had abandoned its bargaining rights with Gibraltor by failing to assert them or contact the employer over a period of several years during which the collective agreement automatically renewed, despite having reason to believe the employer was active.