M. A. Nairn

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party employer violated the collective agreement by employing non-union members to perform insulation work.

The responding party failed to file a response.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board deemed the responding party to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board declared that the responding party violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $1,050.00 in damages and $214.00 in costs.

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 Board ordered the disbursement of the $777.08 held in trust by the Director, with $500.00 paid to the employee, $177.08 returned to the employer, and a $100.00 administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for the employees of the responding party.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast were in favour of the applicant.

No statements of desire to make representations were filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act by sending an undated letter to the Ministry of Labour.

The Board advised the applicant that the application was not filed properly and provided a deadline to re-file using the correct forms.

The applicant failed to respond by the deadline, and the Board terminated the application.

In a sector determination proceeding, the parties agreed during a telephone conference call to provide notice to additional affected parties identified by the responding party and the IBEW-CCO.

The Board directed the applicant to deliver the required materials to the newly identified entities and extended the deadline for any affected party to file a response.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than 50% of the ballots cast were in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on subsequent certification applications by the applicant for the same bargaining unit was imposed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued two certificates pursuant to section 160(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

One certificate was confined to the industrial, commercial and institutional sector in Ontario, and the other covered all other sectors in the specified geographic area.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A representation vote was held, and the ballot count indicated the applicant was entitled to be certified.

However, the Board noted that the required notices to employees, including the Notice of Application, Notice of Vote, and Notice of Report of Board Officer, had not been posted at the job sites.

The Board directed the responding party to post the application, the Board's decision, and an attached notice for 15 days to ensure affected employees were informed, after which the Board would proceed with the application.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed within the time fixed under Rule 62 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on subsequent applications for certification by the applicant was imposed.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed after the statutory deadline.

The Board directed the applicant to provide submissions regarding the delay or a request to extend the time limits.

The applicant failed to respond.

Finding no explanation for the delay and no extenuating circumstances, the Board dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant sought pre-hearing production of certain documents via letter.

The responding parties opposed, intending to bring a motion to dismiss for no prima facie case at the commencement of the hearing.

The Board found the documents arguably relevant but declined to order pre-hearing production, instead directing the responding parties to bring the requested documents to the scheduled hearing for the seized panel to determine the appropriate course of action.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application following the filing of Minutes of Settlement.

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

The applicant requested an extension of time to file an application for review of an Order to Pay under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant filed an acceptable irrevocable letter of credit.

With the agreement of the Ministry, the Board granted the extension of time to July 31, 2000.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards matter.

The parties filed Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the proceeding having regard to the settlement.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act 61 calendar days after the Order was issued.

The applicant argued the application was timely because the 45-day limit in s. 68(3) should be calculated using working days, relying on the Board's Rules.

The Board rejected this argument, holding that the statutory term 'days' means calendar days, consistent with the ordinary meaning of the word and the legislative intent for expeditious dispute resolution.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether Ottawa-Carleton Lifeskills Inc., a non-profit community agency providing residential services and lifeskills training for developmentally disabled persons, is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board reviewed the employer's operations, noting the extensive care, observation, and treatment provided to clients with various physical and mental disabilities.

Applying the statutory criteria, the Board concluded that the employer is an institution operated for the observation, care, or treatment of persons afflicted with physical or mental illnesses, and advised the Minister that it is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Act.

The applicant requested pre-hearing production of documents in a construction industry grievance referral.

The Board found the request premature, as the responding party's counsel was away and the parties had not yet attempted to resolve production issues directly.

The Board directed counsel to deal with production directly before seeking an order, with leave to renew the request if necessary.

The applicant filed a timely application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act but failed to pay funds into trust at that time.

The applicant subsequently provided an acceptable letter of credit and requested an extension of time to file the application.

The Board granted the extension, noting the applicant's prompt efforts to obtain the letter of credit, the lack of intent to abandon the application, and the absence of prejudice to the responding parties.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the responding party employed non-members to perform plumbing and pipefitting work on a high-rise residential project.

The responding party failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board accepted the union's evidence that non-members were performing covered work, found the responding party in violation of the collective agreement, and ordered it to pay damages for lost wages and costs.

In an application for certification, the parties disputed the voter eligibility of several positions, arguing they should be excluded under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act due to managerial functions or confidential capacity relating to labour relations.

The Board found that the Assistant to the Director of Finance was properly excluded as part of the managerial team due to her role as a 'change agent' with access to financial information.

However, the Volunteer Coordinator, Network & Facilities Manager, and two bookkeepers were found to be employees within the bargaining unit, as their duties did not involve regular and material involvement in confidential labour relations matters or independent managerial authority.