Board reserved decision on duty of fair representation complaint to allow applicant time to consider withdrawal.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for failing to arbitrate a grievance regarding his termination.
Following a consultation, the Board reserved its decision on consent until January 15, 2002, to allow the applicant time to decide whether to withdraw the application or have the Board issue its decision.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant sought to withdraw his application against the responding party union.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Application adjourned sine die on consent for up to one year.
The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.
The Board consented to the adjournment, noting the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.
Representation vote ordered in union certification application despite employer's dispute over bargaining unit composition.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party housing corporation.
The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.
The Board directed a representation vote, with individuals in disputed positions casting segregated ballots.
Board extends response deadline and orders applicant to re-deliver complete certification application materials to interested party.
The applicant union filed applications for certification.
The interested party, SEIU, advised the Board that it received an incomplete copy of the application via fax.
The Board directed the applicant to deliver a fresh, complete copy of the application materials to SEIU and file a Certificate of Delivery.
The Board extended the deadline for filing responses and interventions until two days after the fresh delivery is effected.
Board directs representation vote in application for certification after finding sufficient membership evidence.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board determined that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the agreed-upon voting constituency.
Retirement homes operated by the same legal entity as an adjoining nursing home are public sector employers subject to proxy pay equity.
The Applicants, owners and operators of adjoining nursing homes and retirement homes, objected to Review Officers' Orders declaring them to be 'seeking employers' under Part III.2 of the Pay Equity Act in respect of all employees in their retirement communities.
The Applicants argued that the proxy method of pay equity comparison should only apply to their nursing home operations, which are publicly funded and regulated, and not to their private retirement home operations.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal found that because each retirement community was operated by a single legal entity that held a nursing home licence, the entire entity was a 'public sector' employer under the Act.
Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the 'establishment' for pay equity purposes included all employees of the employer, regardless of whether they worked in the nursing home or the retirement home.
The Review Officers' Orders were confirmed.
Board directed parties to file written submissions on whether related employer application established prima facie case.
The applicant union brought an application under sections 1(4) and 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a sale of business and seeking a related employer declaration.
The responding parties argued the application did not establish a prima facie case because the acquired entity was non-unionized and no labour relations purpose was disclosed.
The Board directed the parties to file written submissions on these preliminary issues.
Motion to dismiss duty of fair representation application for delay denied; matter referred to Labour Relations Officer.
The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The union and employer requested that the application be dismissed for delay.
The Board found that, measuring the delay from when the applicant became fully aware of the issue, the delay was not so unreasonable as to warrant summary dismissal without a hearing.
The Board referred the matter to a Labour Relations Officer, while noting potential issues with the merits of the application.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union reasonably relied on past practice in dropping grievances.
The applicants filed duty of fair representation complaints against their union for failing to pursue their grievances to arbitration.
The grievances alleged that the employer improperly denied them the right to bump junior employees in a different classification following a layoff.
The union decided not to pursue the grievances based on a uniform past practice requiring employees to have previously performed a job for the employer to be considered qualified to bump into it.
The Board dismissed the applications, finding that the union had honestly considered the merits of the grievances and that its decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.
Reconsideration request dismissed where applicant failed to attend original consultation and offered no new evidence.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her duty of fair representation application after she failed to attend the scheduled consultation.
The applicant sought to have the Board review the documentary material she had previously filed.
The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting that its power to reconsider is discretionary and generally not exercised where a party had notice of a hearing but chose not to appear, or where the party merely seeks to re-argue their case based on existing material.
Rent-to-income ratios and permanent employment requirements in rental applications constitute discrimination based on age and colour.
The complainants, two young black individuals, alleged discrimination in accommodation on the basis of age and colour after their rental application was rejected.
The rejection was based on their failure to meet a 33% rent-to-income ratio and a requirement for permanent employment.
The Board of Inquiry found that the use of rent-to-income ratios and minimum job tenure criteria adversely impacted young persons and visible minorities, constituting discrimination under the Human Rights Code.
Although the corporate landlord was vicariously liable, the Board declined to order damages because the complainants had already settled with one of the corporate partners and the proper landlord entity was not named as a respondent.
The Board ordered the property manager to cease using rent-to-income ratios and permanent employment requirements.
OLRB issues consent orders resolving unfair labour practice and OHSA reprisal applications pursuant to settlement.
The union and an individual employee filed applications alleging unfair labour practices and occupational health and safety reprisals following the layoff of four employees and alleged threats.
Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued consent orders reflecting the settlement, which included monetary damages to the union and the individual employee, a declaration that certain threatening statements were inappropriate, and a requirement for the employer to post a notice acknowledging employees' rights to raise safety concerns without fear of reprisal.
Application adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.
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, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within that time.
Applicant found to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act based on documentary evidence.
The applicant union applied for certification and sought a determination of its trade union status under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board reviewed the documentary evidence, including the union's constitution, affiliation certificate, and minutes of its organizing meeting.
Applying the established five-step guideline, the Board found that the applicant had taken the necessary steps to form a trade union and concluded that it is a trade union within the meaning of the Act.
Union's preliminary motion to dismiss employer's reliance on the bargaining strength exception under the Pay Equity Act dismissed.
The employer objected to a Review Officer's order requiring it to increase the job rates of female job classes represented by OPSEU to match the rates of male comparator classes represented by CUPE.
The employer argued the difference was justified under the bargaining strength exception in s. 8(2) of the Pay Equity Act.
OPSEU brought a preliminary motion to summarily dismiss the employer's application, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, the pay equity plan precluded the exception, the application failed to state a prima facie case, and the employer was estopped by its past conduct.
The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear the motion but dismissed it on all grounds.
The Tribunal found the pay equity plan did not govern post-achievement maintenance, the joint bargaining context did not negate a prima facie case, and the employer had not made a clear representation to waive its statutory rights under s. 8(2) that would establish promissory estoppel.
Board varied previous decision to confirm applicant's trade union status under the Labour Relations Act.
In an application for certification, the applicant requested that the Board correct its previous decision to reflect that it had already been found to be a trade union under a different name.
The Board reconsidered and varied its previous decision, finding that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The applicant sought to withdraw the application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
Request to dismiss duty of fair representation complaint for no prima facie case denied; submissions on delay ordered.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding the settlement of his 1997 harassment grievance.
The employer and union requested that the application be dismissed for failure to state a prima facie case and for delay.
The Board dismissed the request to dismiss for failure to state a prima facie case, finding sufficient substance in the allegations.
However, given the significant delay in filing the application, the Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining the delay before determining whether to dismiss the application on that basis.
Board adjourned application sine die but declined to issue consent order incorporating settlement terms.
The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement and requested that the Board issue a consent order incorporating the settlement terms while adjourning the application sine die.
The Board declined to issue the consent order at this time, noting that the parties must choose whether future hearings would address the original application or compliance with the settlement.
The Board adjourned the matter sine die for up to one year, with the option for the parties to withdraw the application immediately if they prefer the settlement to be incorporated into an order.