Marilyn Silverman

The applicant employees filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party union no longer represented them.

On the scheduled hearing date, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement, which provided for the counting of ballots from a previously ordered representation vote.

More than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union.

Consequently, the Board declared that the union no longer represented the employees.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued declarations and orders on consent, finding that the responding party breached the hiring provisions of the collective agreement and ordering the payment of $80,000 in damages, with $25,000 payable in installments and the balance held in abeyance pending any future violations.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, resulting in four votes in favour and six against, with three segregated ballots.

One segregated ballot belonged to an interested party whose employment status was disputed.

A hearing was scheduled to hear her representations, but she failed to attend.

The Board denied the union's request for an adjournment, ruled that the interested party's ballot would not be counted, and dismissed the application for certification as the union could not mathematically achieve the required majority even if the remaining segregated ballots were counted in its favour.

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

At the commencement of the hearing, another union brought a motion requesting intervenor status.

The Board denied the motion, finding that the intervention was filed late without reasonable expediency and did not disclose a sufficient legal interest to warrant intervenor status.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding the timing of a grievance filed in 1992 concerning pay merit increases.

The union requested the application be dismissed without a hearing due to delay and failure to establish a prima facie case.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 96(4) of the Labour Relations Act to dismiss the application, finding the delay of almost eight years to be extreme and prejudicial to the union.

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 funds held in trust by the Director in accordance with the settlement, with $900.00 to the employee, $970.44 to the employer, and $187.04 retained as an administration fee.

The applicant union filed a grievance referral against the responding party employer.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year, having regard to the agreement of the parties set out in correspondence from the applicant's counsel.

If neither party requests the Board to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant sought a review of three Orders to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board had previously adjourned the applications to allow the applicant to pay the required monies into trust or make alternate arrangements.

The Ministry of Labour advised that no payments were made and requested termination.

The Board terminated the applications.

The applicant employer requested a review of an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The application was filed late due to an addressing error, but the applicant made significant efforts to file on time and provided an acceptable letter of credit.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the deadline for filing the application.

The applicant attempted to appeal a decision of an Employment Standards Officer by letter.

The Board advised the applicant that the appeal must be filed on Form A-69 and provided a 15-day deadline to submit the proper form.

The applicant failed to submit the form, and the Board terminated the proceeding.

The responding party in a construction industry grievance requested particulars and production of documents prior to the scheduled hearing.

The Board found the application sufficiently particularized, as the responding party knew the case it had to meet regarding allegations of non-union workers performing bargaining unit work.

The request for document production was denied as it merely restated the Board's Rules of Procedure, with the Board noting any compliance issues could be raised at the hearing.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement to dispose of all issues in dispute.

Having regard to the settlement, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the matter.

The applicant employer sought a review of an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The Registrar initially advised the application was untimely.

The Board noted there were two orders to pay with different dates but the same order number.

Assuming the earlier date applied, the Board exercised its discretion under section 68(5) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for applying.

The application was deemed complete and directed to be processed.

The applicant, Costco Wholesale Canada Inc., requested to withdraw its application.

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

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

The Board granted 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 filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union objected to the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the applicant was an employee of Canadian Forces Base-Ottawa and therefore federally regulated.

The Board agreed that the applicant's employment relations were not provincially regulated and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant employee requested a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision refusing to proceed with a claim for unpaid wages.

The officer found the claim was filed more than six months after the wages were due.

The Board confirmed that the wages claimed were from October and November 1997, but the claim was not filed until July 1998.

As the claim came to the knowledge of the Director more than six months after the amounts became due, recovery was barred by section 82.3(1) of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was terminated.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement settling the matter.

The Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement, had violated it by employing non-union members, and ordered the responding party to pay $5,000 in damages in three installments.

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

A representation vote was held in which more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union.

However, the Board mistakenly issued a decision declaring that the union no longer represented the employees.

The Board reconsidered its erroneous decision, corrected the record to reflect the vote results, and dismissed the decertification application.