Marilyn Silverman

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted a consent request to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

If no party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The responding party, Artisan Masonry Inc., requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates due to a serious family health matter requiring the attendance of its advisors and witnesses in Windsor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment request and referred the matter to the Registrar for rescheduling.

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

The application was filed four days after the 45-day statutory deadline.

The applicant requested an extension of time, citing a death in the family as the reason for the delay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for filing, noting the short duration of the delay and the reason advanced.

In an application for certification, two unions sought to intervene.

The Board directed that the interested parties be added to the service list and provided with notice of hearings and meetings.

The determination of their status to participate was deferred to the panel hearing the matter.

The applicant requested to revive the application but subsequently advised the Board that the matter had been settled.

The Board accordingly ordered the application withdrawn.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed.

The applicant union referred grievances and a related employer/sale of business application 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 sole proprietor is bound by the Provincial Collective Agreement, that she violated the agreement, and ordering her to pay $18,000 to the applicant.

The remaining applications were withdrawn with leave of the Board.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 neither party requests to proceed.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving the dispute over union security provisions.

The Board issued a consent order declaring the responding party bound by the collective agreements, finding violations of the construction agreement, and ordering the payment of $19,000 in damages and a $25,000 fine in accordance with the settlement schedule.

The applicant, Harmony Developments II Inc., requested to withdraw its applications against Angelo C. Consales and the Ministry of Labour.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the applications were withdrawn.

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 funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $3,500 paid to the employee, $1,325.60 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant filed an application against Powerlasers Ltd. and the Ministry of Labour.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.

The applicants sought a review of an employment standards officer's decision denying their claim on the basis that they were covered by a collective agreement.

The Ministry of Labour had no record of a claim for one of the applicants.

The Board held that it cannot entertain an application for review when no claim has been filed, and ordered that her application be terminated unless she provides a reason within 10 days.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was scheduled.

Counsel for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 353 asserted that the application was untimely and advised that an intervention would be filed.

The Board ordered the ballot box sealed until further order or agreement of the parties.

The applicant sought to appeal a decision of an employment standards officer.

The Registrar advised the applicant that the application was not properly filed and gave him 10 days to file a proper application.

The applicant failed to file a proper application within the time limits, and the application was terminated.

The applicant employer applied for 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 funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed according to the settlement, with $1,200 paid to the employee, $14.35 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the Manager of Field Services to count the ballot in this matter, having regard to correspondence from the applicant's counsel and a prior Board decision.

The applicant union requested leave to amend its application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to add Haley Industries Limited and Trimag L.P. as responding parties.

The Board granted the request and extended the terminal date to allow the newly added parties to file responses.

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

The responding party did not file a formal response but submitted a letter raising concerns about jurisdiction, geography, and administrative difficulties.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support and that the responding party's concerns were not reasons to delay or deny a representation vote.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote to be held.

The applicant employer applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act following the transfer of land ambulance services from three hospitals to the applicant.

The parties agreed there was a sale of part of a business and that a representation vote should be ordered.

The only issue in dispute was the appropriate bargaining unit description.

The employer and SEIU proposed a traditional service unit, while CUPE proposed an ambulance paramedic only unit.

The Board found that the broader service unit proposed by the employer was the more appropriate unit, as it preserved the status quo of the predecessor employers and aligned with the preference for broader-based bargaining structures.