Marilyn Silverman

The applicant filed an application alleging that the responding union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant claimed the union failed to adequately represent him in a workers' compensation matter, forcing him to retain his own representative, and sought reimbursement for those fees.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that even if the facts alleged were true, the union had no obligation to provide the applicant with his representative of choice.

As there were no allegations of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct, the application failed to make out a prima facie case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural direction regarding the order of proceedings.

The Board ordered that the applicant trade union shall proceed first in argument when the hearing resumes.

The applicants filed complaints under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Labour Relations Act.

The health and safety complaint between one applicant and the employer was terminated on consent.

The complaints involving the other applicant were adjourned sine die on consent.

The remaining complaint against the union proceeded to a hearing, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Board dismissed the remaining application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed his complaint under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant argued he never received a 1995 letter stating the responding party union would no longer represent him in his WSIB claim, though he admitted being told in a meeting that they would no longer represent him and obtaining separate representation in October 1995.

The Board found the reconsideration request contained no new evidence that could not have been obtained previously, nor any error that would warrant reconsideration.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The application was filed one day late, and the correct forms were filed later after notification from the Registrar.

The Board exercised its discretion to extend the time for filing, noting the minimal delay and the applicant's clear and expedient efforts to comply with the time limit.

The union applied for immediate relief in advance of a final offer vote, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices through intimidation and coercion regarding the consequences of a 'no' vote.

The Board declined to grant the requested declarations and cease-and-desist orders on an expedited basis, finding insufficient evidence had been presented in the single day of hearing to assess the totality of the bargaining context.

The Board directed the parties to bring to the employees' attention a statement affirming their right to vote freely and secretly, and scheduled the matter for continuation.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision 22 days after the 45-day statutory time limit expired.

The applicant requested an extension of time, explaining that he had thrown away the Ministry of Labour's letter containing the time limit information without opening it because the Officer had already orally advised him of the refusal.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time limit, finding that the applicant's choice to discard the letter without reading it was not an appropriate reason for an extension.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union requested the termination of the matter via a letter from its counsel.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and terminated the proceeding.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute against the responding union and employer.

On consent of the parties, the Board adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year and extended the time for the responding union to file its response.

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 of not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

The responding party's objection under section 8.1 of the Act was dismissed, as that section does not apply to construction industry certification applications.

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 of at least forty percent in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

The responding party's assertion that the individuals were employees of a subcontractor was deferred to a post-vote hearing.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment with leave and rescheduled the hearing.

The panel is not seized.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the responding union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to adequately respond to his difficulties with the employer regarding a shift change and a fitness assessment.

The union requested that the application be dismissed on the basis of delay.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Act to dismiss the application, noting that the dispute arose two years prior to the date of the application, which was well after a reasonable time had elapsed.

The applicant union referred a grievance and filed a related employer/successor rights application against the responding parties in the construction industry.

Prior to the conclusion of the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement wherein the responding parties admitted to violating the union security provisions of the collective agreement.

The Board issued declarations and orders incorporating the settlement terms, including a declaration that the responding parties are bound by the collective agreements and an order to pay $45,000 in damages.

The applicant employee appealed a decision of an Employment Standards Officer.

On the scheduled hearing date, neither the applicant nor the responding employer appeared.

The Ministry of Labour representative was present.

Noting that the notice of hearing warned that failure to attend could result in the application being decided without further notice, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant union applied for certification and won the representation vote.

The parties agreed on all matters except whether co-op students should be included in the bargaining unit description.

The Board determined that because the bargaining unit was not exclusively a full-time unit, co-op students should not be excluded from the description.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The employer appealed a decision of an employment standards officer.

On the scheduled hearing date, neither the employer nor the employee attended.

The Ministry of Labour representative was present.

After waiting until 10:30 a.m., the Board convened the hearing and dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend, noting that the notice of hearing warned of this consequence.

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 Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the disbursement of the $11,425.98 held in trust by the Director, with $4,800 returned to the employer, $5,587.25 paid to the employees, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The University of Toronto requested an adjournment of multiple matters involving the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3902.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, adjourning the matters sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by discontinuing assistance with his workplace injury claim.

The Board noted the applicant hired his own counsel over three years prior to filing the application.

Finding the delay substantial, unexplained, and prejudicial to the union, the Board exercised its discretion to summarily dismiss the application.