Employee's request for review under the Employment Standards Act withdrawn following settlement.
The applicant employee requested a review of an Officer's decision not to issue an Order under the Employment Standards Act.
The applicant subsequently forwarded Minutes of Settlement and Release relating to a human rights matter, which included a release of any claims arising out of her employment, including claims under the Act.
The Board treated the document as a request to withdraw the application and granted leave to withdraw.
Application for review of Order to Pay dismissed as untimely after employer failed to request extension.
The employer filed an application for review of an Order to Pay outside the 45-day period prescribed by section 68(3) of the Employment Standards Act.
The Board notified the employer that the application appeared untimely and invited a request for an extension of time.
No request was received.
The Board dismissed the application as untimely and directed the payout of monies held in trust.
Matters withdrawn with leave of the Board following a Memorandum of Agreement.
The applicant union sought to withdraw three matters against the responding employer following a Memorandum of Agreement signed by the parties.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the matters.
Employer's late appeal of Orders to Pay dismissed; claim of non-receipt rejected.
The applicant employer appealed three Orders to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act considerably outside the 45-day statutory appeal period.
The applicant claimed it never received the Orders to Pay until a collection agency became involved.
The Board noted that the Ministry of Labour sent the Orders to the applicant's correct business address and to the attention of the responsible person.
The Board found it unlikely that none of the three separate mailings reached the applicant, concluding instead that the applicant ignored them.
The Board declined to grant an extension of time and dismissed the appeal as untimely.
Applications withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicants requested to withdraw their applications.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications.
Board issued a consent order declaring collective agreement violations and ordering $8,000 payment.
The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving the dispute.
The Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement and had violated specific articles.
The responding party was ordered to pay $8,000 in full and final settlement of the grievance.
Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure more than 50% of representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification.
A representation vote was held, but not more than 50% of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.
As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and noted the potential effect of section 10(3) of the Act on any subsequent application filed within one year.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed for failing to plead any supporting facts.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The applicant failed to set out any facts or allegations in the application form, simply stating that all facts and evidence were noted by the union and the company.
The Board dismissed the application because it failed to plead a prima facie case and did not provide the responding parties with sufficient information to understand the case they had to meet.
The Board also noted the application was likely premature as the grievances were still in the grievance and arbitration procedure.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union acted reasonably in declining to arbitrate mandatory retirement grievance.
The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to pursue a grievance regarding her mandatory retirement at age 65.
The applicant's former union lost representation rights following a municipal amalgamation, and the responding union voluntarily took over her file despite having no legal obligation to do so.
The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union acted reasonably in obtaining a legal opinion, securing a settlement offer, and weighing the applicant's interests against those of the broader bargaining unit facing significant downsizing.
Board orders unfair labour practice complaint and termination application to be heard together.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint relying on the same particulars it used to resist an application to terminate bargaining rights.
The employer objected to having the matters heard together.
The Board ordered that the two files be heard together, finding it would be inefficient and inappropriate to hear them separately given the identical underlying circumstances and allegations.
Duty of fair representation consultation adjourned to allow proper local union to be identified and notified.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) after her employer closed and her dental benefits were terminated.
The ATU responded that it did not hold bargaining rights and that the local union was the proper responding party.
The Board adjourned the scheduled consultation because the local union had not received notice of the proceedings.
The Board directed the ATU to provide the identity and contact information of the local union that holds the bargaining rights, and referred the matter to field services for mediation.
Board sets order of proceedings for related sale of business and grievance applications.
The Board issued a procedural direction regarding four related files involving applications for a sale of business or single employer declaration, a challenge to a voluntary recognition agreement, and a construction industry grievance referral.
On agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the grievance referral and directed that the challenge to the collective agreement be heard first.
Sale of business declared; successor employer held liable for predecessor's unpaid grievance damages.
The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of business occurred between Rideau Plumbing and Heating Ltd. and Gilles Patenaude operating as Gilles Plumbing, or that they were a single employer.
The union had previously obtained a grievance award against Rideau for using non-union labour, but Rideau claimed to have ceased operations.
The Board found that Patenaude, the principal of Rideau, was operating Gilles Plumbing using the same skills and performing the same work.
The Board declared a sale of business under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, binding Patenaude to the collective agreement and holding him liable for the $36,873.60 in damages previously awarded against Rideau.
The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed as the mischief was remedied by the sale of business declaration.
Employer not required to report equipment failure under OHSA s. 53 if it poses no safety risk.
The applicant, a worker co-chair of the joint health and safety committee, appealed an inspector's decision not to issue an order against the employer under section 53 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The employer had shut down an Acid Drying Tower due to operational issues but did not report this as a 'failure' to the committee.
The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that while reporting requirements should be interpreted broadly, a 'failure' under section 53 only requires reporting if it presents a risk to worker health and safety.
Since the tower's operational problem posed no immediate safety risk until it was opened for repairs—at which point other safety regulations applied—the employer was not obliged to report it under section 53.
Application for reconsideration granted to correct an inadvertent error in the bargaining unit description.
The applicant union and responding employer both submitted that the Board made an inadvertent error in its previous decision by failing to incorporate their full agreement regarding the bargaining unit description.
The Board granted the application for reconsideration and amended its previous decision to include the correct bargaining unit description and clarity note.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed without a hearing for being untimely and lacking a labour relations purpose.
The applicant filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation.
The Board had previously directed the applicant to address whether there was a labour relations purpose in inquiring further into the complaint, given that it was rooted in events from 1993.
The applicant's submissions confirmed that all her complaints stemmed from a 1993 union meeting.
The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding it was largely untimely and that there was no labour relations purpose in inquiring into the timely elements as they were not severable from the untimely aspects.
Employer's deduction of client bad debt from broker's commissions constituted an improper set-off against wages.
The employer appealed an Order to Pay wages after withholding $10,280 from a terminated broker's commissions to cover a client's bad debt.
The employer argued the deduction was an allowable expense or, alternatively, authorized by the employee's e-mail.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the deduction was an improper set-off against wages under the Employment Standards Act, and that the e-mail lacked sufficient particularity to constitute a written authorization for the deduction.
Board directs written submissions for prima facie motion to dismiss unfair labour practice complaint.
The applicant union brought an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint.
Several responding parties sought to bring a motion to dismiss the unfair labour practice complaint against them on the basis that it did not make out a prima facie case.
The Board directed that the prima facie motion be heard in writing and set a schedule for submissions.
The parties agreed on the voting status of one individual, and the Board directed the counting of the ballots from the representation vote, deferring the determination of the status of two other individuals.
Pre-amendment definition of non-construction employer applies to application filed before legislative changes took effect.
During an ongoing application by an employer seeking a declaration that it was a 'non-construction employer' under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the legislature amended the definition of 'non-construction employer'.
The Board was asked to determine whether the pre-amendment or post-amendment definition applied to the proceeding.
Applying the Interpretation Act and common law principles regarding accruing rights, the Board held that the employer had an accruing right to have its application determined under the law as it existed when the application was filed.
The proceeding was ordered to continue under the pre-amendment legislation.
Application regarding Review Officer's Order allowed to proceed solely on the issue of whether pay equity adjustments were paid.
The applicant employer brought a new application regarding a Review Officer's Order, after its first application was dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.
The Tribunal found that the new application repeated the same allegations regarding the Review Officer's conduct, which had already been dismissed.
However, the new application also included allegations that the employer had paid out all amounts owing under the pay equity plans.
The Tribunal allowed the application to proceed solely on the issue of whether the pay equity adjustments required in the plans had been paid out, as this was a substantive workplace dispute within the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
The Tribunal directed the Deputy Registrar to set early hearing dates.