M. A. Nairn

A group of Pharmacy Technicians employed at Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation petitioned the Ontario Labour Relations Board to be moved from the 'office and service' bargaining unit to the 'technical' bargaining unit following a hospital merger.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that historically, unionized Pharmacy Technicians at the pre-merger institutions were represented in the 'office and service' unit, and no compelling reason was advanced to depart from that history.

The applicant union brought applications against multiple responding parties.

On consent of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The responding parties, the Toronto Transit Commission and the Ministry of Labour, requested that the applications be dismissed or stayed pending the disposition of a related reprisal complaint.

The Board noted that considerable evidence had already been heard and the matters were scheduled to continue shortly.

The Board decided to finish hearing the evidence and reserve any determination on the requests to dismiss or stay until the conclusion of the case, at which point argument on those issues could be addressed along with the merits.

The employer and the trade union reached a settlement of a first collective agreement, which included an agreement to withdraw their respective unfair labour practice complaints.

The trade union sought leave to withdraw its complaint, but an individual employee, who was a co-applicant, did not wish to withdraw.

The Board denied leave to withdraw both complaints, noting that the settlement of one appeared contingent on the other, and directed the individual employee to file a statement of intention regarding his application.

The applicant employer brought an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging violations of sections 17 and 76 by the responding union.

The applicant sought to amend its application to add a claim for damages in the nature of common law damages for defamation, raising a preliminary jurisdictional issue.

On the hearing date, proceedings were interrupted by a fire drill.

The Board adjourned the hearing, noting that the jurisdictional issue regarding defamation damages would be better addressed in the context of the full facts underlying the conduct complained of.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule four days of hearing for all outstanding issues.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance and a related employer/successor rights application against the responding parties.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding party, Eastern Gunite and Sandblasting, is bound to the applicable provincial and heavy construction collective agreements.

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The 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 applicant, a director of a now-defunct bakery, applied for a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

During the hearing, the applicant reached a settlement with three of the claimants, agreeing to pay one claimant $350.00 and entering into written minutes of settlement with two others.

The Board heard evidence regarding a fourth claimant and reserved its decision, while adjourning the hearing for a fifth claimant who was not present.

The applicant employer sent correspondence seeking a 'third appeal' of an Employment Standards Officer's order.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board noted that the employer's previous application for review and request for reconsideration had already been dismissed due to a failure to comply with filing requirements.

The Board clarified that it is a separate entity from the Ministry of Labour and that its decisions are generally final.

The matter was dismissed, but referred to the Manager of Field Services to assist the employer in understanding the Ministry's position on compliance.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application via a letter from counsel.

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

The Ontario Nurses' Association (ONA) objected to a vote being ordered in a representation application and alternatively requested to be placed on the ballot in respect of registered nurses.

The Board denied the request to be placed on the ballot, noting that outstanding issues would be dealt with after the vote.

The applicant, an account executive, sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying his claim for approximately $40,000 in unpaid commissions.

The applicant resigned before the employer received payment from a client for a contract he had finalized.

The employer's compensation plan, signed by the applicant, explicitly stated that commissions were only payable on a cash receipts basis and that no commissions would be paid for payments received after termination.

The Board found that the compensation plan was a valid contract of employment and its terms limited the payment of commissions upon termination.

The application for review was dismissed.

The applicant, a director of a now-defunct bakery, applied for a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

During the hearing, the applicant reached settlements with three of the claimants, including a $350 payment to one claimant.

The Board heard evidence regarding a fourth claimant and reserved its decision.

The hearing regarding the fifth claimant, who was absent, was adjourned to a later date.

The applicant requested to withdraw the matter.

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

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application.

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

The applicants brought an application for review under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

At the hearing, the responding employer failed to appear.

One of the applicants was also absent.

The applicants requested an adjournment, noting that the Board had misdirected a previous decision to the wrong fax number of their representative.

The Ministry of Labour did not oppose the request.

The Board granted the adjournment and rescheduled the hearing.

The responding employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing for an Employment Standards Act appeal, initially citing unforeseen personal scheduling problems and later medical grounds.

The applicants opposed the adjournment, noting they had arranged for witnesses and interpreters.

The Board denied the adjournment request, finding that the employer provided no details or supporting medical documentation to justify the request.

The applicant brought an application for review under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

On the day scheduled for the hearing, the parties met with a Labour Relations Officer and resolved the matter.

Having regard to the filed Minutes of Settlement, the Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer following a prior Board decision.

The Board directed the parties to comply with the terms of the Minutes of Settlement, which included a monitoring and enforcement mechanism.