Application objecting to Review Officer's Order withdrawn without objection from the respondent.
The Applicant requested to withdraw its Application objecting to a Review Officer's Order.
The Respondent did not object to the withdrawal, though she expressed concerns about legal costs and enforcement options.
The Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal permitted the withdrawal and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates, noting that the Respondent or the Pay Equity Office could now seek to enforce the Review Officer's Order.
Adjournment granted to allow applicant to consider necessity of proceeding with application.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for the following day, citing newly discovered information that required time to consider whether to proceed with the application.
As no other party was participating and no one would be inconvenienced, the Tribunal granted the adjournment for 45 days, directing the applicant to advise whether it intended to proceed.
Tribunal sets formula for calculating and allocating retroactive pay equity adjustments from 1% of payroll.
The Employer brought an application regarding a Review Officer's Order concerning the calculation and allocation of the 1% of payroll available for pay equity adjustments between 1990 and 1997.
The Tribunal directed the Employer to devote 1% of the bargaining unit's payroll to create a pool for these adjustments and set out a specific formula for calculating retroactive payments.
The Tribunal also ordered the implementation of the pay equity adjusted rates by March 23, 2002, and revoked the Review Officer's Order.
Tribunal issued procedural directions for submissions on adjournment, standing, and sale of business issues.
The applicant employer sought an adjournment of its application regarding a Review Officer's order requiring it to make pay equity adjustments.
The employer argued it could not afford the adjustments due to a lack of funding from the Crown, and that a recent transfer of programs constituted a sale of business to a new employer.
The Tribunal issued procedural directions, requiring the parties to make written submissions on whether the matter should be adjourned, whether the Crown was a proper party, whether the requested remedies were appropriate, and whether the sale of business issue needed to be determined in this proceeding.
Tribunal scheduled a hearing to determine compliance with a pay equity order and jurisdictional issues.
The Pay Equity Office referred a matter to the Tribunal alleging the employer failed to comply with a Review Officer's order to prepare and post a pay equity plan.
The Office sought remedial relief including an order directing a Review Officer to prepare the plan at the employer's expense.
The Tribunal questioned its jurisdiction to grant such relief on a section 24(5) referral and scheduled a hearing, directing the employer to file a report on its compliance efforts.
Tribunal struck pleadings challenging Review Officer's conduct, reiterating that its hearings are de novo.
The employer applied to the Pay Equity Hearings Tribunal regarding a Review Officer's order concerning the calculation of retroactive pay equity adjustments.
The employer sought to strike the order and requested the Tribunal inquire into the Review Officer's conduct.
The Tribunal struck the pleadings relating to the Review Officer's conduct, reiterating that its hearings are de novo and it does not inquire into the process or conduct of Review Services.
The Tribunal scheduled a hearing to assist the parties in setting deadlines for calculating and paying the adjustments.
Tribunal directs employer to show cause why application should not be dismissed for lacking prima facie case.
The applicant employer sought to quash a Review Officer's order requiring it to make pay equity adjustments, arguing it lacked the ability to pay and should not be considered a public sector employer.
The Tribunal noted that the employer admitted it was licensed under the Child and Family Services Act, which statutorily defines it as a public sector employer for pay equity purposes.
Furthermore, established Tribunal jurisprudence holds that inability to pay is not a defense to pay equity obligations.
Finding that the applicant failed to plead a prima facie case for the requested remedies, the Tribunal directed the applicant to file submissions before making a final decision on dismissing the application.
Grievance adjourned pending outcome of related jurisdictional dispute over work assignment.
The Labourers referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging that their members were unlawfully laid off by the responding employer for exercising their statutory rights and because a steward was about to testify in a jurisdictional dispute.
The employer and the Carpenters union, who sought to intervene, requested that the grievance be adjourned pending the outcome of an ongoing jurisdictional dispute involving the same parties.
The Board granted the adjournment, finding that the validity of the work assignment was a live issue in the grievance and that it made practical sense to await the decision in the jurisdictional dispute.
The issue of the Carpenters' right to intervene was also deferred.
Unfair labour practice complaint regarding elimination of bargaining unit deferred to arbitration as dispute was primarily contractual.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer eliminated its bargaining unit to avoid collective agreement obligations.
The employer filed a jurisdictional dispute and sought to defer the matters to arbitration, arguing the collective agreement explicitly contemplated the elimination of the composing room due to technological change.
The Board found the dispute to be primarily contractual rather than a total repudiation of the bargaining process.
The Board deferred the unfair labour practice complaint and jurisdictional dispute to arbitration and adjourned the matters sine die.
Matter adjourned on consent of the parties.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the matter to February 8, 2002, on the agreement of the parties.
The panel noted it was not seized of the matter.
Applications for OHSA reprisal and duty of fair representation dismissed due to 18-month delay.
The applicant filed complaints alleging that his employer terminated him contrary to the Occupational Health and Safety Act for raising safety concerns, and that his union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to grieve the dismissal.
The applications were brought more than 18 months after the applicant left the workplace.
The Board declined to inquire into the complaints due to the excessive delay, noting that the applicant's own documents contradicted his claims and showed he had been pursuing other avenues for compensation during the delay period.
The applications were dismissed.
Board orders single employer application to be heard before non-construction employer application.
The Board considered the order of proceedings for multiple applications involving the Carpenters' Union and Scarborough Town Centre Holdings Inc. The employer sought to have its non-construction employer application heard before the union's single employer/successor employer application.
The Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the non-construction employer application until bargaining rights were established, and ordered that the single employer/successor employer application be heard first.
Working foreman without hiring or firing authority is an employee entitled to vote in certification.
In an application for certification in the construction industry, the Board determined the voter eligibility of several individuals.
The Board found that a working foreman did not exercise managerial functions as he lacked authority to hire, fire, or grant wage increases, and was therefore an employee entitled to vote.
The Board also determined that operating a compressor and moving scaffolding for painters fell within the union's work jurisdiction, making those employees eligible to vote.
However, an employee performing general site clean-up was performing labourers' work and was ineligible to vote.
Grievance referral adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.
The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral sine die.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.
Taking unapproved vacation was not wilful misconduct disentitling employee to termination pay.
The employer appealed an Officer's Order requiring it to pay termination pay to an employee who was terminated after taking a one-week vacation without explicit approval.
The employer argued the employee abandoned his job and was guilty of wilful misconduct under s. 57(10)(c) of the Employment Standards Act.
The Board found that while the employee was foolhardy to leave without confirming approval, his actions did not amount to serious, intentional misconduct.
The employer's conclusion that the employee abandoned his job was unreasonable given they knew he had requested vacation.
The appeal was dismissed and the Order to Pay was affirmed.
Consent declaration issued binding both responding parties to the collective agreement.
The applicant sought a declaration that the responding parties were a single employer or that a sale of business had occurred under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The parties reached a resolution by an exchange of letters.
The Board issued a consent declaration that both responding parties are bound by the relevant collective agreement, and the applicant withdrew its grievance and claim for damages.
Application adjourned sine die on consent for up to one year.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
On the agreement of the parties, the Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.
Employer ordered to pay $42,442.52 in unpaid union remittances following an undefended grievance referral.
The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The responding party employer failed to attend the hearing.
The Board proceeded in the employer's absence and found, based on contribution reports, that the employer failed to make required remittances under the collective agreement for the period of August to October 2001.
The Board ordered the employer to pay $42,442.52 in unpaid remittances and $749.00 for filing and hearing fees.
Undefended construction grievance allowed; employer ordered to pay $79,895 in unpaid union remittances.
The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party failed to make required remittances.
The responding party did not attend the hearing.
The Board found the responding party was bound by the collective agreement and had failed to remit contributions for August, September, and October 2001.
The Board ordered the responding party to pay $79,895.00 in unpaid remittances and $749.00 for filing and hearing fees.
Board ordered employer to pay $12,465.72 in unpaid union remittances following an uncontested grievance hearing.
The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party failed to make required remittances under the collective agreement.
Based on the evidence provided by the applicant, the Board found the responding party was bound by the collective agreement and had failed to remit contributions for the period of June to October 2001.
The Board ordered the responding party to pay $12,465.72 in outstanding remittances and reimburse the applicant's filing and hearing fees.