Marilyn Silverman

The applicant union requested that three new applications under the Labour Relations Act be scheduled to be heard together with an existing application for certification.

The Board granted the request, directing that the matters be scheduled together, abridging the time for filing responses, and ordering the employer to post the decision.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent security guards employed by the responding party in Guelph, Ontario.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties reached a settlement and requested a consent declaration.

The Board declared that a sale of business occurred from Axis Logistics Inc. to Sobeys Ontario, that Sobeys is the successor employer bound by the current collective agreement, and that Axis and Sobeys are not related employers.

The applicant, through counsel, requested to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party library board.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties on the appropriate bargaining unit and the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

The intervenor union requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because it was unavailable.

The applicant and the responding employer objected to the request.

The Board denied the adjournment, noting that adjournments are only granted on consent or where there are emergency or other compelling reasons.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.

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

The applicant union applied for certification to represent registered practical nurses at the responding employer's nursing home.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with provisions for segregating ballots of individuals in disputed positions.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application via correspondence.

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

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant union referred four grievances to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alongside a section 1(4) application.

The Board previously found the responding parties to be under common control and direction.

The Board amended the style of cause to consolidate the responding parties into one file and terminated the other three files.

As notice of the hearing was returned undelivered for one responding party, the Board adjourned the hearing to ensure proper notice.

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

He submitted new evidence regarding the delivery date of a letter he sent to the union.

The Board denied the request, finding that even if the new evidence was accepted, it would not change the outcome.

The original decision was based on the applicant's refusal to allow the union to represent him and his focus on procedural issues, which undermined the union's efforts.

The letter in question was not determinative of the breach of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, seeking a declaration that the responding parties constitute a single employer and are bound by the applicable collective agreement.

The responding parties failed to file a response.

The Board deemed the responding parties to have accepted the facts stated in the application, finding that the various corporate entities and individuals carried on associated or related activities under common control and direction to evade obligations under the collective agreement.

The Board granted the declaration and ordered that damages previously awarded against one entity be attributed jointly and severally to all responding parties.

The responding party union requested reconsideration of a decision terminating its bargaining rights, noting that the Board had incorrectly terminated its rights in the maintenance, service, and non-ICI bargaining unit.

The Board agreed that an error was made and amended its previous decision to clarify that the union's bargaining rights were terminated only in the Industrial, Commercial and Institutional (ICI) sector, while maintaining its rights in the maintenance, service, and non-ICI construction sectors.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year, based on the agreement of the parties.

If neither party requests to proceed within that time, the matters will be deemed terminated.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation regarding a safety grievance from 1997.

The applicant was terminated in August 1997 and filed an initial application in 1999, which was dismissed for lack of particularity.

The current application was filed in September 2001.

The employer requested the Board dismiss the application due to delay.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 96(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to dismiss the application, finding that the delay of over four years significantly prejudiced the responding party and intervenor, and there was no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding employer.

The employer also filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the union and an individual.

At the scheduled hearing, the parties resolved the matters in dispute.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed a second representation vote for the agreed-upon bargaining unit of carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

The unfair labour practice complaints were withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The employer and employees sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an employment standards officer regarding overtime, termination, and vacation pay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board allowed the employer's appeal in part.

The Board found the employees' overtime records unreliable and preferred the employer's schedule, calculating overtime pay based on the piecework 'shop rate'.

The Board dismissed the claim for termination pay, finding the employee abandoned his position by failing to report to work or provide medical documentation.

The claim for vacation pay was also dismissed as the employee was on a paid leave of absence.

The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision that awarded the union $10,852.28 in damages for a collective agreement violation.

The employer had failed to attend the original hearing, claiming it relied on an intervenor who subsequently withdrew, and argued the damages should only be $229.62 for reporting pay.

The Board denied the request, holding that a party who receives notice, fails to attend, and is unhappy with the result cannot use reconsideration as an appeal or to present a defence it chose not to present initially.