M. A. Nairn

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.

The applicant requested to withdraw the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the matter was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint seeking a new representation vote under section 11(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the union violated section 76 by distributing a leaflet that disclosed a settlement offer and referenced plant closures.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union's disclosure of the settlement offer to employees did not constitute coercion or intimidation.

Furthermore, the Board held that the union's statements regarding plant closures, when viewed in context, were not threats but rather reassurances to employees.

Concluding that the employer's allegations did not make out an arguable case for a violation of the Act, the Board dismissed the complaint and certified the union based on the results of the representation vote.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act.

At the hearing, the responding party's principal requested an adjournment to retain counsel, which the Board denied due to ample prior notice.

The Board also ruled that the responding party could not participate in the hearing because it failed to file a Notice of Intent to Defend or a response.

After hearing evidence from the applicant, the Board found that the responding party violated the applicable collective agreements by failing to pay proper wages and make required benefit contributions.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $152,626.51 in damages and liquidated damages.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement filed by the parties, the Board granted leave to withdraw the referral.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a related employer and successor rights declaration against the responding parties.

On the scheduled hearing date, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement.

Having regard to the agreement, the Board declared that Guillot Builders Limited and Great North Restorations Ltd. are one employer for the purposes of the Act and are bound to the Provincial ICI collective agreement.

The applicant, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association Local 473, requested to withdraw its application against W&S Services Limited and Westair Technologies Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

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

The Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement, had violated it, and ordered the payment of $41,190.11 in unpaid remittances for specified months.

The applicant hospital applied under the Public Sector Labour Relations Act, 1997 to determine the appropriate configuration of bargaining units following the merger of two predecessor hospitals.

The predecessor hospitals had different bargaining structures, with one having a large inclusive unit and the other having smaller specific units.

The Board balanced issues of fragmentation against varied experience and representation.

The Board ruled that there would be four bargaining units: nurses, service and clerical, technologists/technicians, and maintenance.

The parties were directed to meet with a Labour Relations Officer to resolve precise descriptions and vote arrangements.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging violations of the collective agreement.

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

The Board issued declarations and orders in accordance with the settlement, finding that the responding party violated the collective agreement and ordering it to pay $17,883.46 in unpaid remittances and vacation pay.

The applicant union filed a grievance referral against the responding party employer.

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

The applicant union referred a matter to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following an initial hearing, the parties agreed to attempt to develop member profiles.

The Board issued an interim order authorizing the responding party to release health care information if an agreement on member profiles is reached, and adjourned the matter to a later date.

The applicant appealed an Order to Pay issued against her as a director of a restaurant business under the Employment Standards Act.

She argued that she was an inactive director and had been told she would have no responsibilities.

The adjudicator dismissed the appeal, holding that director liability under the Employment Standards Act is strict liability and there is no legal basis to relieve against it.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint against her employer under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and a duty of fair representation complaint against her union under the Labour Relations Act.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the duty of fair representation complaint for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board denied the motion, finding an arguable case was made out on the pleadings.

Noting that both complaints involved overlapping issues regarding the scope and alleged settlement of the applicant's grievances, the Board directed that the matters be listed for hearing together.

The applicants, directors of a bankrupt furniture company, appealed orders to pay issued against them under the Employment Standards Act.

The Ministry of Labour was satisfied that pursuing the orders would not be in the public interest due to the directors' financial and health circumstances.

The Ministry withdrew the orders, and the Board terminated the proceedings.

The responding party requested reconsideration of a prior decision and challenged the Board's jurisdiction to hear an application brought under section 13 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the alleged misunderstanding regarding document production did not alter the conclusion that the matter should proceed to a hearing.

The Board also dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, confirming its authority to inquire into and state a case for contempt under the SPPA.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace an incumbent union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the applicant union.

The Board directed a representation vote to be taken.

However, because the applicant had not yet established its trade union status and the timeliness of the application was unclear, the Board ordered the ballot box to be sealed pending further representations.

The applicant requested to withdraw the matter against Toronto Hydro Electric System Limited.

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

The style of cause was also amended to reflect the correct name of the responding party.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at Carleton Place Manor.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and proposed a different bargaining unit.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.