M. A. Nairn

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 Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the employer is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and whether the Minister can rescind a 'no board' notice.

The Board adjourned the proceedings to allow the parties to focus on bargaining their first collective agreement, noting that litigation would negatively impact negotiations.

The matter was rescheduled, and the parties were directed to meet and bargain in good faith.

The applicant brought an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 alleging violations of sections 2(7) and 76.

The responding party asserted there was no prima facie case and requested dismissal.

The Board declined to decide the preliminary issue on the written materials and directed that the matter be listed for a hearing to hear evidence and submissions on whether the application makes out a prima facie case.

The applicant union filed related employer and sale of business applications, as well as construction industry grievances, against the responding parties.

During the proceedings, the parties reached a resolution and entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued orders declaring Cranehill Mining Services Inc. bound to the collective agreement and directing Nickel City Steel Limited to pay $25,000 to the union.

The applications were subsequently withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a decision that dismissed an application for review under the Employment Standards Act due to late filing.

The request for reconsideration was also filed late, as the applicant attempted to file it by facsimile transmission, which is prohibited by the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board refused to extend the time for filing, noting the importance of finality and the clear rules against facsimile filing for originating documents.

Furthermore, the Board found no substantive grounds for reconsideration, as the applicant raised no new evidence or arguments.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance and brought a related employer application against the responding companies.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order declaring certain responding parties to be a single employer bound by the union's collective agreements, and ordered the payment of $9,460.44 for unpaid wages and contributions.

The applicant union sought to confirm service of its application on the responding party, Sir Forming Limited.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that Sir Forming Limited had received actual notice of the application through delivery to its principal, despite his refusal to accept subsequent documents.

The Board also granted the applicant's request to withdraw the application against Italarm Construction Ltd. without prejudice, as service could not be effected.

The Board issued directions regarding outstanding production issues, particulars, and the scheduling of future hearing dates.

The applicant, a Worker Certified Member of the Track and Structure Safety Committee, filed an application against the Toronto Transit Commission and the Ministry of Labour.

Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement filed by the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the matter.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior Board decision, alleging that the employer restricted his ability to discuss documents with co-applicants and intimidated potential witnesses.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no impediment to the applicant's preparation for the upcoming health and safety appeals and noting that allegations of witness intimidation must be raised in a separate application with full particulars.

The applicant union sought further production of documents and costs for the day, while the responding parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to the medical condition of one of their principals.

The Board ordered the responding parties to produce specific outstanding documents by a set date, warning that failure to comply could result in a stated case for contempt under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Board granted a short adjournment of two hearing dates to allow the responding parties' counsel to instruct a new advisor, but denied an open-ended adjournment and the applicant's request for costs.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) applied under section 13(1)(c) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act for the Board to state a case to the Divisional Court for contempt against the responding party, an employee who had filed a reprisal complaint.

The TTC alleged the employee distributed documents produced in the reprisal complaint to intimidate a potential witness, breaching an implied undertaking.

The employee raised preliminary objections, including that the TTC failed to make out a prima facie case and failed to provide sufficient particulars.

The Board dismissed the motion to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case, finding an arguable case of improper conduct.

The Board ordered the TTC to provide further particulars regarding the alleged distribution of documents prior to the hearing, but declined to order the disclosure of witness names at this stage.

The application was scheduled to be heard together with the reprisal complaint.

The applicants filed an application to terminate bargaining rights.

A vote was held and the ballot box was sealed pending the resolution of status disputes and allegations under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

At the scheduled hearing, the responding party requested an adjournment due to confusion over the hearing date caused by the Board's standard practices and notices.

The Board granted the adjournment, rescheduling the hearing to peremptory dates the following week.

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

The initial application was not filed in accordance with the Board's Rules.

The Registrar advised the applicant to re-submit the application using the proper form within 20 working days.

The applicant failed to do so.

Consequently, the Board terminated the application.

The applicant employer attempted to file an application for review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act by sending a letter and partial payment to the Ministry of Labour.

The Board notified the employer that the application was not filed on the correct form and granted an additional 20 days to comply with the Rules of Procedure.

The employer failed to file the required forms within the extended time limit.

The Board concluded the employer did not wish to proceed and terminated the matter.

The claimant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to make an order to pay against the employer.

The claimant's initial letter was not filed in accordance with the Board's Rules.

The Registrar advised the claimant to re-submit the application using the proper form within 20 working days.

The claimant failed to file the completed form within the allotted time.

The Board terminated the application.

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

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the matter.

The applicant union sought compliance with a pre-hearing order for document production in a related employer and sale of business application.

The responding parties claimed they had provided documents for review and no copies were required, while the applicant asserted it had only seen a portion and needed copies.

The Board reaffirmed its prior order, directing the responding parties to produce and file the specified documents with the Board by March 15, 2000, failing which a hearing would be held to consider contempt proceedings.

In a health and safety appeal concerning the safety of the brake pedal on RTS buses, the applicants sought to file written statements from drivers or call every driver who operated the bus.

The Board directed the applicants to limit their evidence to specific named individuals who had filed relevant reports or complaints, and to select a limited number of representative witnesses for general concerns.

The TTC was also directed to produce specific verbal and written reports related to the brake pedal.

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 and responding party advised the Ontario Labour Relations Board that they had entered into a settlement.

At the request of the parties, the Board terminated the proceedings.