Deadline for applicant's submissions extended.
The applicant requested an extension of the deadline for submissions as directed by a previous Board decision.
The Board granted the request, extending the deadline to June 6, 2001.
Application withdrawn on consent of the parties.
The applicant union filed an application against the Crown in Right of Ontario Ministry of Transportation.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.
Decertification application dismissed for failing to describe bargaining unit and providing photocopied documentary evidence.
The applicant applied to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board dismissed the application because it failed to set out a description of the bargaining unit, making it impossible to determine a voting constituency.
Furthermore, the documentary evidence filed was a photocopy of a letter addressed to the employer, which did not satisfy the requirement for an original document clearly expressing the employees' wish not to be represented by the union.
The application was dismissed without prejudice to filing a fresh application.
Application terminated following correspondence from the applicant.
The applicant, Essa Staff Union, submitted correspondence to the Ontario Labour Relations Board requesting the termination of its application against the Social Science Employees Association.
The Board acknowledged the correspondence and ordered the matter terminated.
Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
The applicant requested to withdraw the application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board acknowledged the correspondence and ordered the application withdrawn.
Application adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, having regard to the agreement of the parties.
The application will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed within that time.
Representation vote ordered in certification application with ballots segregated and box sealed due to bargaining unit dispute.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board found that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and ordered a representation vote, directing that all ballots be segregated and the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the disputes over the bargaining unit's geographic scope and composition.
Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding parties.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate will issue to the applicant and cancelled previously set hearing dates.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board on agreement of the parties.
The applicant sought to withdraw its application against the responding party.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
Representation vote directed in union certification application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.
Application adjourned sine die for up to one year.
The responding party requested an adjournment of the application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.
If neither party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.
Application adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, noting that it would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.
Hearing adjourned on consent at the request of the Ministry of Labour.
At the outset of the hearing, counsel for the Ministry of Labour requested an adjournment.
The applicant and the other responding party agreed to the request.
The Board granted the adjournment and referred the matter to the Registrar for rescheduling.
Motion to dismiss duty of fair representation complaint denied as settlement terms were not adequately proven.
The applicant filed a complaint alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The intervenor employer brought a motion to dismiss the application without a hearing for failure to disclose a prima facie case, arguing that the applicant's grievance remained unresolved because he refused to sign a medical waiver required by a memorandum of understanding.
The Board denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the terms of the settlement had not been adequately described or proven at this stage, and referred the matter to be processed in the normal course.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicants requested to withdraw their application via correspondence.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Applicant directed to file submissions on motion to dismiss duty of fair representation complaint against International Union.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against I.A.T.S.E. International and I.A.T.S.E. 873.
The responding parties brought a motion to dismiss the application against the International Union without a hearing, arguing the application raised no allegations against it.
The Board directed the applicant to file written submissions as to why the application should not be dismissed against the International Union before making a final determination on the motion.
Board orders implementation of $1,000,000 settlement for unpaid wages following withdrawal of employee objections.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued orders to implement a proposed settlement after an objection by three individuals was withdrawn.
Zettel Manufacturing Limited and Trillium Metal Stamping were ordered to pay a total of $910,000 to the CAW and $90,000 to the Ministry of Labour in two installments.
The Ministry will distribute its portion to non-union employees.
The Board also noted the Ministry's conditional agreement to waive recovery of compensation paid under the Employee Wage Protection Program.
Motion to amend duty of fair representation complaint to add new statutory violations denied.
The applicants brought a preliminary motion to amend their duty of fair representation complaint under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act to include allegations of violations of sections 70, 72, and 76.
The Board denied the request, directing the applicants to file a separate application with specific factual allegations if they wished to pursue those claims.
The responding union's motion to strike portions of the applicants' pleadings relating to internal union matters was also dismissed, as the Board found the allegations could arguably be relevant to the section 74 complaint.
Director held liable for unpaid wages of related bankrupt company's employees.
The applicant, a director of West Machinery Co. Limited, sought a review of an order to pay unpaid wages and vacation pay owed to employees of Tobac Curing Systems Limited.
The Employment Standards Officer had found that West and Tobac were related employers under section 12 of the Employment Standards Act and issued the order against the applicant as a director of West.
The Board found that the two companies were related businesses, as they operated under the same roof, shared a controlling mind, and West relied almost exclusively on Tobac's employees.
The Board also rejected the applicant's argument that the Officer had broad discretion under section 58.22 to consider her personal circumstances before issuing the order.
The application for review was dismissed and the order to pay was affirmed.
Request for reconsideration dismissed as applicant failed to provide compelling reasons for missing the hearing.
The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed its application for review after it failed to appear at the hearing.
The applicant claimed it did not receive notice because the facsimile number on file was wrong.
The Board declined to reconsider the decision, noting that the Notice of Hearing was successfully transmitted to the facsimile number provided by the applicant in its application, which had also been used previously by the Board without issue.