Employer ordered to pay $17,632.38 in unpaid union remittances after failing to attend 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.
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 the periods of July to October 2001.
The Board ordered the responding party to pay $17,632.38 in outstanding remittances and interest, plus $749.00 for filing and hearing fees.
Grievance referral adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.
The applicant union and responding party employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral sine die.
The Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.
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 will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.
Pay Equity Office denied standing to intervene in employer's challenge to Review Officer's compliance order.
The Pay Equity Office sought standing to intervene as a party or as a friend of the tribunal in an application brought by the employer challenging a Review Officer's Order.
The Order concluded that the employer had not implemented its pay equity plans and directed payment of adjustments.
The Office argued it had a substantial and direct interest in the outcome, particularly because the non-union employees were unrepresented and vulnerable.
The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the Office's general interest in promoting pay equity did not amount to a direct and substantial interest in the specific outcome of the case.
The Tribunal also declined to grant amicus status, noting the issue was a straightforward factual determination of whether the employer had made the required payments.
A voluntary recognition agreement entered into after a certification application is filed does not bar the application.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of paramedics.
After the application was filed, the respondent employer and an intervenor union entered into a voluntary recognition agreement covering the same employees.
The intervenor and employer argued this agreement barred the certification application.
The Board held that the timeliness of a certification application is assessed at the time it is made, and subsequent actions by an employer and a rival union cannot render a timely application untimely.
The Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant union.
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 no request to proceed is made.
The applicant union filed a grievance referral against the responding party.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.
Application adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.
The Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.
Grievance referral adjourned sine die for up to one year 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 would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board following settlement between the parties.
The applicant requested to withdraw its application following a settlement reached between the parties.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.
Board corrects dates for representation vote to November 26 through December 7, 2001.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision correcting an error in the dates set for a representation vote among instructors at the Ontario Police College and other specified employees.
The correct dates for the vote are from November 26, 2001, to December 7, 2001.
Representation vote directed in displacement application for civilian employees at the Ontario Provincial Police.
The applicant association brought a displacement application under the Public Service Act seeking to displace the intervenor union as the bargaining agent for a group of civilian employees at the Ontario Provincial Police.
The Board found that the application was timely and that the applicant had filed sufficient membership evidence to entitle it to a representation vote.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the employees in the voting constituency to determine whether they wished to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor.
Tribunal directed an oral hearing to resolve factual disputes over whether an employer identity issue was raised below.
The applicant sought a review of a Review Officer's order regarding pay equity compliance, asserting that an affected party, Russell Metals Inc., was the true employer.
The affected party argued this issue was raised for the first time in the application and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to consider issues not raised at Review Services.
Finding fundamental factual disputes in the parties' written submissions on whether the issue was raised below, the Tribunal directed the scheduling of an oral hearing to determine this threshold issue.
Board grants adjournment but refuses to deem facts accepted despite failure to file defence.
The applicant referred a construction industry grievance to the Board and requested an adjournment, which the responding party agreed to.
The applicant also requested that the Board deem the responding party to have accepted all facts in the application because it failed to file a Notice of Intent to Defend.
The Board granted the adjournment but declined to deem the facts accepted, noting that the responding party's agreement to adjourn and meet with an Officer could have reasonably led it to believe it was not in jeopardy of such a request.
Hearing adjourned to December 3, 2001 at the applicant's request.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the matter.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the hearing to December 3, 2001.
Adjournment request granted by the Board.
Board directs submissions on whether to defer unfair labour practice and jurisdictional disputes to arbitration.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer eliminated bargaining unit work to avoid its collective agreement responsibilities.
The employer filed a jurisdictional dispute, asserting it properly assigned the work to another union's members for business reasons.
The Board noted that the jurisdictional dispute appeared premature as the union's right to the work must first be determined at arbitration.
Before deciding whether to adjourn the jurisdictional dispute and the unfair labour practice complaint pending arbitration, the Board directed the parties to file written submissions.
Board dismisses delay argument and directs applicant to provide submissions on prima facie case.
The applicant alleged he was terminated as a reprisal for raising health and safety concerns and for supporting a union.
The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applications for delay and for failing to make out a prima facie case.
The Board dismissed the delay argument, finding the applications were brought less than a month after termination.
On the prima facie case issue, the Board directed the applicant to provide further submissions detailing the material facts relied upon before making a determination.
Board orders production of relevant documents but denies request for will say statements.
The applicant requested an order for the production of documents and will say statements in advance of a scheduled consultation.
The Board ordered the production of the requested documents, finding them arguably relevant to the remaining issues, but declined to direct the employer and union to prepare will say statements or summaries of their intended evidence.
Union's bargaining rights terminated following representation vote and minutes of settlement.
The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union in the construction industry.
The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing that three challenged individuals were performing bargaining unit work and their ballots should be counted.
Following the representation vote, more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union.
The Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the employer.