Duty of fair representation complaint adjourned sine die pending the outcome of the underlying arbitration.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging the union failed to diligently advance her job posting grievances.
The union requested the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.
The Board found that the applicant pleaded a prima facie case, assuming her allegations of delay and lack of diligence were true.
However, the Board concluded it was premature to inquire further and adjourned the complaint sine die pending the outcome of the ongoing arbitration.
Board directed applicant to provide proof that civil wrongful dismissal action was dismissed before reconsidering appeal.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed his appeal under the Employment Standards Act.
The original appeal was dismissed because the applicant had concurrently filed a civil action for wrongful dismissal, which is prohibited under section 64.4 of the Act.
The applicant's representative argued that the civil action had since been dismissed because of the Employment Standards Act claim, leaving the applicant without a forum.
The Board directed the applicant to provide documentation proving the civil action was dismissed and the basis for the dismissal before it would decide whether to reconsider its earlier decision.
Board consolidated duplicate appeal files and confirmed the employer's application for review of an Order to Pay was complete.
The employer filed an appeal of an Order to Pay, which resulted in two identical files being opened by the Board.
The Board ordered the closure of one file and the consolidation of documents into the other.
The Board confirmed receipt of a complete and timely application for review, including proof of payment into trust, and directed the matter to proceed in the usual way.
Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification.
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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.
Request for new representation vote dismissed as alleged employer misconduct would not overwhelm employees' true wishes.
The applicants sought a new representation vote, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices by denying union leave to SEIU members to campaign for OSSTF while granting leave to CUPE members, and allowing CUPE to campaign on school time.
The Board dismissed the request for a new vote on a preliminary motion, finding that even if the allegations were true, the conduct amounted to a loss of opportunity to influence voters rather than conduct that would overwhelm employees' ability to express their true wishes in a secret ballot.
Consent adjournment of scheduled hearings granted by the Board.
The applicant union and responding party employer agreed to adjourn the hearings scheduled for January 10, 11, and 12, 2000.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment and referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule a new hearing date after February 18, 2000.
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.
Application withdrawn based on parties' Minutes of Settlement.
The applicant filed an application against the responding parties.
Having regard to the parties' Minutes of Settlement, the Adjudicator/Referee ordered the application withdrawn.
Construction grievance dismissed as union failed to establish ICI sector bargaining rights.
The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the employer violated the provincial collective agreement.
The employer argued the union held no bargaining rights in the ICI sector.
The union relied on a 1986 grievance settlement, payment of damages, and a single month of union referrals to establish bargaining rights or an estoppel, conceding its 1986 voluntary recognition agreement was invalid for the ICI sector.
The Board dismissed the grievance, finding the union's evidence insufficient to establish bargaining rights in the ICI sector, noting that parties should not stumble into such significant statutory liabilities.
Provincial labour laws apply to a band-owned fur dressing factory located on a reserve.
The union applied for certification of employees at a fur dressing company located on a First Nation reserve, owned by the Band Council, and employing primarily Band members.
The employer argued that its labour relations fell under federal jurisdiction due to 'Indianness' and the Band's extensive involvement.
The Board applied the functional test from Four B Manufacturing, finding that the operational nature of the business was an ordinary industrial activity (a tannery) and did not touch on Indian status or rights.
The Board concluded that provincial labour relations legislation applied and granted the certification application.
Grievor entitled to termination and severance pay; construction exemption inapplicable to shop fabrication work.
The union referred a construction industry grievance seeking termination and severance pay under the Employment Standards Act for a member.
The employer argued the grievor was disentitled due to willful misconduct, refusal of a right to recall, and because his employment fell within the construction exemption.
The Board rejected all three arguments, finding no misconduct, no right to recall under the collective agreement, and that the grievor was predominantly employed at a fabrication shop rather than a construction site.
The Board directed payment of termination and severance pay.
Employer ordered to pay unpaid benefit remittances; director not personally liable as contributions are not wages.
The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging the employer failed to remit contributions to various benefit funds.
The employer admitted liability for $11,390.06 but failed to attend the hearing.
The Board ordered the employer to pay the outstanding remittances plus interest.
The union also sought an order against a director of the employer under the Employment Standards Act, arguing the unpaid contributions constituted wages.
The Board dismissed the claim against the director, finding that benefit plan contributions are excluded from the definition of wages under the Act.
Employer did not breach duty to bargain in good faith regarding planned discipline of union negotiators.
The union alleged that the employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith by failing to disclose its intention to suspend two members of the union's negotiating team without pay.
The employer had previously sent letters indicating it would investigate their conduct after the strike ended.
During negotiations, the union tabled and then withdrew a proposal to protect the negotiating team from discipline.
The Board found that the employer's initial letters provided sufficient disclosure for the union to formulate a bargaining response.
By withdrawing its proposal without seeking clarification, the union elected to take its chances.
The complaint regarding the duty to bargain in good faith was dismissed.
Construction of a golf course falls within the ICI sector based on its commercial end-use.
The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding earth moving work performed by the responding party for the construction of a golf course.
The central issue was whether the work fell within the industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sector or the roads sector.
The Board applied its established end-use test, concluding that a golf course is a commercial enterprise and therefore the work falls into the ICI sector.
The Board also dismissed the responding party's argument that an oral hearing was required, finding that Rule 110 permitted a decision based on written submissions.
Board grants leave to withdraw first contract application after parties ratify a new collective agreement.
The employer applied for a first contract direction under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The union raised preliminary objections, arguing the applications were premature and should be dismissed.
The Board found the applications were premature but cured the irregularity under section 123 of the Act.
The Board further determined that the applications were properly governed by the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act (PSLRTA), which required the matter to be heard by a single vice-chair.
Ultimately, the parties concluded collective bargaining and ratified a Memorandum of Agreement, prompting the employer to seek leave to withdraw the applications.
The Board granted leave to withdraw.
Constitutional challenge to Employment Standards Act trust payment requirement dismissed for insufficient pleadings.
The applicants sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay unpaid wages, termination pay, and vacation pay.
They failed to pay the ordered amount into trust as required by section 68(7) of the Employment Standards Act, arguing the requirement was unconstitutional.
The Board directed the applicants to file written submissions setting out the basis for their constitutional challenge and material facts.
The applicants filed a Notice of Constitutional Question but failed to provide sufficient facts or clearly identify the Charter right infringed.
The Board dismissed the constitutional challenge due to unsatisfactory pleadings and cancelled the hearing.
Board determines bargaining unit structures and orders union access to employee lists following hospital amalgamation.
The Northwest GTA Hospital Corporation applied under the Public Sector Labour Transition Act to resolve outstanding issues prior to ordering representation votes following a hospital amalgamation.
The Board determined the composition of office and clerical units, and declined to maintain separate bargaining units for stationary engineers and Etobicoke paraprofessionals, opting instead for broader service and paramedical/technical units to avoid undue fragmentation.
The Board also ordered the employer to provide the unions with employee names and addresses to facilitate access prior to the representation votes.
Employer ordered to pay over $71,000 for knowingly using non-union labour and failing to remit benefits.
The applicant union referred two grievances to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party employer breached the collective agreement by hiring non-union employees and failing to make required remittances.
The employer admitted to using non-union labour but argued it was justified because the union withdrew a wage subsidy.
The Board rejected this defence, finding the employer knowingly violated the collective agreement.
The Board ordered the employer to pay $16,312.45 for unpaid remittances, $30,652.93 in damages for the use of non-union labour, and an additional $25,000 penalty pursuant to the collective agreement for knowingly violating its terms, totaling $71,965.38.
Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed for failure to serve the union prior to filing.
The applicants filed an application to terminate bargaining rights under section 63(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The responding union argued the application should be dismissed because it was not delivered to the union before or on the day it was filed with the Board, as required by section 63(3) and Rule 43bb.
The Board found the applicants failed to comply with the statutory and procedural requirements for delivery and dismissed the application.
Union certified for all-employee unit; disputed first-line officers found not to exercise managerial functions.
The applicant union sought certification for an all-employee bargaining unit at the Ontario College of Teachers.
The College disputed the inclusion of several positions, arguing they exercised managerial functions or were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board found that the Membership Records Officers and Client Services Officers, while aligned with management, did not possess sufficient independent decision-making authority or make effective recommendations regarding the economic lives of employees to be excluded.
The Board also denied the College's request to reconsider an earlier ruling that prevented it from calling evidence regarding Executive Secretaries, finding no prima facie case for their exclusion had been established.