Marilyn Silverman

The applicant filed an employment standards application against the City of Toronto and the Ministry of Labour.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties dated April 27, 2001, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 alleging a violation of section 76, disputing that it was bound to a collective agreement.

At the scheduled hearing, after initial submissions, the applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application following a settlement with the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicants brought various applications against the responding parties.

Based on the agreement of the parties, the Board permitted the withdrawal of several applications.

The Board also declared that Boemer Anderson Construction Limited and Heritage Memorials of Perth County Ltd. are related employers for the purposes of section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and terminated the related employer applications.

The applicant employee appealed a decision of an employment standards officer regarding unpaid wages and an improper travel deduction.

The responding party employer failed to appear at the hearing.

Based on the applicant's uncontradicted sworn evidence, the Board found he was owed $63.65 for one day of unpaid work (inclusive of vacation pay) and $40.00 for an improper travel deduction.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the applicant $103.65.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights but failed to file a Certificate of Delivery (Form A-81).

The applicant had also filed an identical application in another Board file where a representation vote was already held.

The Board noted that under Rule 139 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, the application must be delivered to the union within two days of filing.

The Board directed that if the Certificate of Delivery is not received within five days, the application will be deemed terminated.

In an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the responding party requested an adjournment to receive particulars, an order denying standing to an intervener (the OPCA), and an order that notice be given to other Employer Bargaining Agencies.

The Board denied the adjournment as the applicant had provided the requested particulars, extending the time for the response instead.

The Board deferred the issue of the intervener's standing to the hearing panel and declined to order notice to other EBAs, finding it unnecessary to determine which other trade classifications the employees might fall into if they did not fall within the applicant's designation.

The applicant filed an application to terminate bargaining rights in the construction industry.

The responding party requested a copy of the Certificate of Delivery and the postmark envelope in which the application was filed.

The Board directed that the other parties have until May 11, 2001, to object to the request, failing which the Registrar will provide the requested documents.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party failed to pay late payment damages for fringe benefit remittances.

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 violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $35,670.00 in damages and $214.00 in filing fees.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to pay late payment damages for fringe benefit remittances.

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 violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $9,580.00 in late payment damages plus filing fees.

The applicant union brought an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On the agreement of the parties, the Board referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule for a hearing and directed that submissions be filed by June 1, 2001.

The responding employee in an employment standards appeal requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing for medical reasons, supported by a medical note.

The Board granted the adjournment and referred the matter to the Registrar for re-scheduling.

The applicant applied to terminate the responding party's bargaining rights under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party argued the application was untimely because an earlier application for the same bargaining unit was already proceeding, with a representation vote held and ballots sealed.

The applicant filed the instant application out of an abundance of caution due to alleged delivery failures in the earlier file.

The Board declined to order a representation vote at this time and directed the applicant and intervenor to file submissions on why the matter should not be deferred pending the disposition of the earlier file.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the intervenor union as the bargaining agent for a unit of roofers employed by the responding party in the construction industry.

The Board found that the applicant had sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

Because the responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, the Board ordered a representation vote and directed that the ballot box be sealed pending resolution of the numerical difference.

A subsequent corrigendum corrected errors in the bargaining unit description and clarified that the responding party did not propose a different bargaining unit.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking to displace the intervenor as the bargaining agent for carpenters and carpenter apprentices employed by the responding party.

The responding party failed to file a timely response.

Based on the application materials, the Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, deferring the intervenor's objections regarding the applicant's trade union status and the validity of the membership evidence to a subsequent hearing.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace the intervenor as the bargaining agent for a unit of construction workers employed by the responding party.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support.

The Board ordered a representation vote, with the ballot box to be sealed pending resolution of the numerical difference between the parties.

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 union'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 union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, noting that the union's objections regarding the applicant's status and alleged employer involvement could be raised before the panel scheduled to hear the application.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The responding party contended the application was untimely due to improper service.

The Board found that not less than forty per cent 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, leaving the timeliness issue to be dealt with by the panel hearing the application.

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

The Board found the application timely and was satisfied that at least 40% of the employees in the bargaining unit appeared to have expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

The applicants applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.