Marilyn Silverman

The parties requested an adjournment of the jurisdictional dispute application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant employer appealed 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 $1,500 paid to the employee and the remainder returned to the employer, and deemed the matter terminated.

The applicant appealed three inspectors' orders under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The order underlying one appeal was rescinded, and the applicant was granted leave to withdraw that appeal.

The applicant requested consolidation of the remaining two appeals, to which the Ministry of Labour consented.

The Board ordered the two remaining appeals to be scheduled together, leaving the formal issue of consolidation to the hearing panel.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party asserted that it utilizes independent contractors and has no employees in the proposed bargaining unit, and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act disputing the union's estimate of employees.

The Board found that the union filed sufficient membership evidence to warrant a representation vote.

The Board ordered a vote to be held but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending resolution of the disputes regarding employee status and the bargaining unit estimate.

The applicant filed an application against Independent Financial Concepts Group Ltd. and the Ministry of Labour.

Having regard to correspondence from counsel for the responding party, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned a scheduled hearing on consent of the parties.

The Board also noted that a request for reconsideration filed by the responding party would be dealt with prior to the newly scheduled hearing date.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party employer failed to pay required remittances and contributions.

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, declared a violation for failure to remit, and ordered payment of damages and filing fees without holding a hearing.

The applicant employer requested a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The request was untimely and the applicant failed to make the required payments to the Director of Employment Standards.

Despite a prior Board decision granting an extension to provide payment and request a time extension, the applicant failed to comply.

The application for review was dismissed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party employer failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

Based on the application material, the Board found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, and the union's withdrawal of its allegations in opposition, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of Sterling Sheet Metal Manufacturing Inc.

The responding party requested reconsideration of a default decision issued after it failed to file a Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate in a grievance referral.

The responding party claimed the union had agreed to adjourn the grievance without requiring the notice and to advise the Board.

The Board directed the union to respond to these submissions by a specified date and denied the responding party's request to adjourn the upcoming hearing on damages pending the reconsideration determination.

The union requested reconsideration of a Board decision that ordered a representation vote in an application to terminate bargaining rights.

The union argued that the application lacked the requisite evidence under section 63(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because the employees were working outside the geographic scope of the bargaining unit on the application date.

The Board declined to determine the reconsideration request at this time, noting the vote had already been held and the ballot box sealed.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be set down for a hearing where the union could argue the eligibility of the voters.

The union requested reconsideration of a Board decision that ordered a representation vote in an application to terminate bargaining rights.

The union argued that the application lacked the requisite evidence under s. 63(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because the employees were working outside the bargaining unit's geographic scope on the application date.

The Board declined to determine the reconsideration request at this time, noting the vote had already been held and the ballot box sealed.

The matter was referred to the Registrar for a hearing where the union could argue the employees' eligibility to vote.

The applicant filed an application under the Employment Standards Act.

Based on correspondence from the responding party's counsel indicating a settlement, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The intervenor requested reconsideration of a decision directing a representation vote in a construction industry displacement application for certification.

The intervenor argued that the employer's failure to provide a number for its estimate of employees in the bargaining unit constituted a valid section 8.1 notice of zero employees, requiring the ballot box to be sealed.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that leaving the estimate blank invalidated the notice, and even if interpreted as zero, it would not raise a numerically significant challenge under the Labour Relations Act.

In an application alleging termination contrary to the pregnancy and parental leave provisions of the Employment Standards Act, the responding party requested particulars regarding the applicant's mitigation efforts.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the applicant to produce documentary evidence of her post-termination earnings, including tax returns, T4 slips, pay stubs, and employment contracts, as these documents are relevant to the calculation of potential monetary damages.

In an application to terminate bargaining rights in the construction industry, the responding party requested an amendment to the bargaining unit description set out in the Board's previous decision ordering a representation vote.

The Board noted a discrepancy between the description in the application (limited to the ICI sector) and the description provided by the responding party (including both ICI and residential sectors).

The Board directed the applicants to provide submissions on why the description should not be amended to match the application.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a Board decision ordering a vote in a displacement application.

The applicant argued the Board erred in stating the intervenor challenged the 40% membership evidence, asserting an intervenor cannot file a section 8.1 objection.

The Board agreed the intervenor had not raised this issue and deleted the relevant paragraph from its previous decision.

However, the Board declined to order the ballots counted, noting they were segregated and sealed because the intervenor challenged whether the voters were performing bargaining unit work on the application date, not because of a section 8.1 challenge.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, ordering that the responding party shall have 10 days after the applicant files the ordered particulars, or 10 days after the Board determines no further particulars are required, to file its response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board amended its previous decision of May 11, 2001, to order the responding party to pay $103.65 to the Director of Employment Standards in trust.