Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant requested to withdraw its application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Related employer application dismissed as there was no labour relations mischief to remedy.
The applicant union brought applications alleging that the City of Toronto and the Toronto Parking Authority were a single employer or that a sale of business had occurred, alongside a construction grievance regarding the contracting of a parking garage to a non-union contractor.
The responding parties brought preliminary motions arguing res judicata based on prior PSLRTA proceedings and that the Board should decline to exercise its discretion under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board rejected the res judicata argument but dismissed the related employer application, finding no labour relations mischief to remedy as the entities had operated separately for years without the union seeking to formalize bargaining rights.
The applicant union sought to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Application adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted a consent request to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.
If no party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.
Unfair labour practice complaint and request for consent to prosecute dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case.
The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the responding union violated sections 73(2) and 76 of the Labour Relations Act during a displacement certification campaign, and sought consent to prosecute.
The Board dismissed both applications for failing to make out a prima facie case.
The Board found no allegations of the responding union bargaining with an employer to engage section 73(2), and noted a trade union is not a 'person' capable of seeking a remedy for intimidation under section 76.
The request for consent to prosecute was also dismissed as the standard was not met.
Board has jurisdiction under section 81 of the CCBA to determine the true employer.
The union applied under section 81 of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act for a determination of the employment status of persons working at a co-operative providing bookstore and food services at a college.
The college and the co-operative raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction to determine the identity of the employer under section 81.
The Board held that it has jurisdiction to determine who is the true employer as a necessary part of determining employee status under the Act.
Board directs applicants to file submissions on whether unfair labour practice complaint is moot.
The applicants filed an unfair labour practice complaint regarding the negotiation of a merger of bargaining units by the SEIU and the employer.
Subsequently, the CAW was certified to represent the employees, replacing the SEIU.
The SEIU and the employer submitted that the application should be dismissed as moot.
The Board directed the applicants to file submissions on the issue of mootness before making a final determination.
Grievance referrals adjourned on consent pending disposition of related Board file.
The applicant union referred two grievances to the Board.
On the agreement of the parties, and with the concurrence of counsel for an interested union, the Board adjourned the matters.
The parties may request a hearing within 60 days of the disposition of a related Board file, failing which the proceedings will be terminated.
Board clarifies timeline for filing a reconsideration request.
The intervenor requested clarification of the Board's previous decision directing it to file a 'timely' request for reconsideration, noting it did not receive the decision until May 8, 2000.
The Board clarified that the time for making the request runs from either May 8 or May 11, 2000, as agreed at the hearing.
Director's appeal under the Employment Standards Act terminated following settlement.
The applicant, a director of Proma International Inc., appealed a decision of an Employment Standards Officer.
The Ministry of Labour advised the Board that the matter had been resolved.
As the matter was settled, the Board terminated the proceeding in accordance with section 69.1(5) of the Employment Standards Act.
The Board ordered a representation vote for a proposed bargaining unit of grocery store employees.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party at a grocery store in Embrun.
The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support (not less than 40%) in its proposed bargaining unit to obtain a representation vote.
The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with segregated ballots for disputed managerial positions.
Application adjourned sine die on consent for up to one year.
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, after which the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed.
Board directed Ministry of Labour to respond to employer's preliminary objections in employment standards appeal.
The employer and two employees appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer in the amount of $612,501.46 plus an administrative fee.
The Officer found the employer failed to keep accurate records, pay overtime, provide eating periods, and pay proper public holiday wages for 109 employees.
The employer raised preliminary objections regarding timeliness and the Ministry's conduct.
The Board directed the Ministry of Labour to file a response to the preliminary objections and scheduled a hearing to determine the preliminary issues.
Employer appeal terminated after parties resolved their differences.
The employer appealed an employment standards matter.
The parties subsequently resolved their differences, leaving no issues to be determined.
The Board terminated the proceeding.
Prima facie case established for duty of fair representation complaint regarding union's pension advice.
The applicant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by misrepresenting that he would receive a pension based on 30 years of service in exchange for withdrawing his termination grievances.
The union and employer sought to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The Board found that the applicant made out an arguable case that the union acted in bad faith, but held that the only available remedy would be an order to process the termination grievance, not an adjustment to his pension or damages.
The matter was remitted to a Labour Relations Specialist for mediation.
Preliminary motion to dismiss unfair labour practice complaint partially granted; allegations regarding bargaining unit merger to proceed.
A group of employees brought an application alleging that the union and employer breached the Labour Relations Act by reopening collective agreements and combining bargaining units without ratification following a hospital amalgamation.
The employer and union raised preliminary objections.
The Board dismissed the applicants' claim regarding statutory holiday pay under the Employment Standards Act, directing them to the grievance process.
However, the Board found that the allegations regarding the process of combining the bargaining units and collective agreements disclosed a prima facie case and directed the matter to proceed.
Applications withdrawn with leave following a memorandum of settlement between the parties.
The parties reached a Memorandum of Settlement on the day the matters were scheduled to be heard.
Having regard to the settlement, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications.
Board issues case management directions in scaffolding jurisdictional dispute, granting Carpenters limited intervenor status.
In a series of construction industry grievances concerning scaffolding work, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued case management directions.
The Board ordered that the newest grievance proceed first, as it offered the best opportunity to litigate based on recent events.
The Board granted the Carpenters union status to participate in the new grievance but denied them participation in the older, bundled grievances.
The Board also limited the scope of documentary production required from the responding employer to ensure an efficient hearing process.
Application for joint certification dismissed after union failed to win majority in representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification with respect to three companies, both separately and as related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
A representation vote was held.
Not more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.
Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for joint certification and imposed a one-year bar on further applications by the applicant.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board at the applicant's request.
The applicant requested to withdraw the application.