Marilyn Silverman

The applicants filed an application under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board previously requested submissions from the responding parties on whether the applicants' employment relations were governed by the Police Services Act, which would affect the Board's jurisdiction.

After receiving responses from the Kirkland Lake Police Association, the Police Association of Ontario, and the Corporation of the Town of Kirkland Lake, the Board directed the applicants to provide their submissions on the jurisdictional issue within ten days.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The original complaint alleged the union acted improperly regarding a leave of absence granted to another employee.

The Board denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant merely reiterated his previous position and did not adduce new evidence or raise new arguments that would warrant varying or revoking the decision.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for unpaid wages and termination pay.

The applicant's wages were reduced by the employer, Provincial International Cranes, which the Board found constituted constructive dismissal.

The Board ordered Provincial to pay 8 weeks' termination pay.

However, the Board dismissed the claim for the wage differential during the period the applicant continued working at the reduced rate.

The Board also dismissed the claim against Konecranes Canada Inc., finding no evidence that it was a related employer under section 12 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the application would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The Board also noted that a request to consolidate this matter with another application could be made when the latter is filed.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against the union and employer.

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

The employer applied under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act to review an order.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the Director in trust to disburse $6,000 to the employee and $4,000 to the employer, and returned the $1,000 administrative fee to the employer.

The application was terminated in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

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

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 according to the settlement, with the employer receiving the principal amount and the employee receiving nothing.

The Ministry of Labour was given ten days to request a hearing if necessary, failing which the matter would be terminated.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application.

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

The applicant filed an application for review of an Order to Pay issued by an employment standards officer.

The applicant failed to pay the full amount of the order ($1,409.41) into trust as required by section 68 of the Employment Standards Act, instead providing post-dated cheques totaling $130.00.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the matter because the application was not accompanied by the requisite payment.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Board granted the request and rescheduled the hearing for November 3, 2000.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party failed to remit contributions and deductions.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

Proceeding by default, the Board accepted the applicant's allegations as true, declared the responding party bound by the provincial collective agreement, and ordered it to pay $19,474.96 in damages plus costs.

The applicant filed correspondence to withdraw his application against the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board acknowledged the correspondence and ordered the application withdrawn.

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 required contributions and remittances under the collective agreement.

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 employer violated the collective agreement and ordered payment of $699.03 in damages plus $214.00 for filing fees.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding employer failed to remit contributions and deductions.

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 employer bound by the provincial collective agreement and ordered it to pay $11,797.52 in unpaid contributions, plus costs and filing fees.

The applicant employer filed an appeal of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The initial letter of disagreement was not in the proper form, and the subsequent proper form was filed outside the 10-day extension granted by the Registrar.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that the applicant had paid the required amount in trust.

The Board directed the applicant to provide proof of payment and, if desired, request an extension of time within 10 days.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to make required contributions and deductions under the collective agreement.

The responding party failed to file a response or 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 declared the employer bound by the collective agreement, found it had failed to make the required payments, and ordered it to pay $8,641.40 in damages plus filing fees.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The parties reached a settlement and agreed to the bargaining unit description.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the employees in the agreed bargaining unit, with the responding party withdrawing its allegations of statutory breaches.

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

The responding employer failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend within the required time.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board deemed the employer to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board declared that the employer was bound by the collective agreement and had violated it by employing non-union members and failing to pay correct wages.

A hearing was scheduled to assess damages.

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

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support and determined the appropriate bargaining unit.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, noting that the responding party's assertion that the individuals were independent contractors rather than employees could be raised at a hearing after the vote.

The applicant, Extender Minerals of Canada Ltd., sought to withdraw its applications against the responding parties, including the Ministry of Labour and an inspector.

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