Time limit for filing response extended to December 22, 2000.
The responding party trade union requested an extension of time to file its response.
The Board granted the request, extending the time limit to December 22, 2000.
Representation votes directed and ballots sealed in displacement applications for certification at nine nursing homes.
The applicant trade union filed displacement applications for certification for full-time and part-time employees at nine nursing home locations operated by the responding party.
The responding party and intervenor unions disputed the proposed bargaining units and the applicant's membership support.
The Board found the applicant established sufficient membership support to warrant representation votes.
The Board directed that segregated representation votes be held for both the full-time and part-time units, with the ballot boxes sealed pending a hearing to determine the appropriate bargaining unit configurations.
Board directs representation vote in timely application to terminate union's bargaining rights.
A group of employees applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the responding party union.
The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.
Board grants adjournment to negotiate bargaining unit dispute and issues interim certificate to union.
The applicant union applied for certification.
A representation vote was held, resulting in a majority in favour of the union.
The only remaining issue was the inclusion of Quality System Associates in the bargaining unit.
The responding party requested an adjournment to allow the parties to negotiate this issue during collective bargaining, which the union opposed.
The Board granted the adjournment and, on consent, issued an interim certificate to the union pursuant to section 9(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, pending final resolution of the bargaining unit composition.
Board directs representation vote in application to terminate union's bargaining rights.
The applicants applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the responding party union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed for lack of particulars and undue delay.
The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The union brought preliminary motions to dismiss the application for lack of particulars and undue delay.
The Board found the applicant's pleadings were wholly deficient and that the union suffered prejudice due to the delay, as a key witness had died.
The application was dismissed.
Duty of fair representation application dismissed; union acted reasonably regarding applicant's mandatory retirement.
The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act regarding his mandatory retirement at age 65.
The applicant claimed the union failed to adequately address his concerns about severance or continued employment.
The Board dismissed the application, finding the union made reasonable efforts to assist the applicant, including seeking legal advice which confirmed his complaint had no basis for success.
The union had no obligation to file a grievance as the applicant never requested one and there was no apparent breach of the collective agreement.
Motion to set aside representation vote dismissed; alleged unfair labour practices insufficient to overwhelm voters' critical faculties.
Following a declaration of a sale of a business and an intermingling of employees, a representation vote was held between two competing unions, Local 3264 and Local 774.
Local 3264 won the vote.
Local 774 brought a motion to set aside the results, alleging unfair labour practices by Local 3264 and the employer, including threats, misleading campaign literature, and destruction of campaign materials.
The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the allegations, even if true, were not sufficient to overwhelm the critical faculties of the reasonable voter and did not warrant the extraordinary remedy of a second representation vote.
Employee appeal dismissed after the applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.
The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.
On the morning of the scheduled hearing, the applicant telephoned to advise she wished to withdraw her application but failed to provide written confirmation or attend the hearing.
Upon the request of the responding parties, the Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend and advance her case.
Case manager and professional practice leader positions placed exclusively in paramedical bargaining unit following hospital restructuring.
In an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transitions Act, 1997 following the restructuring of the Niagara Health System, the Ontario Nurses' Association argued that case manager and professional practice leader positions should fall within the nurses' bargaining unit when occupied by registered or graduate nurses.
The Board rejected this proposal, finding it would create labour relations confusion and conflict with the statutory purpose of establishing effective and rationalized bargaining unit structures.
The Board determined that the positions fall exclusively within the paramedical bargaining unit and appointed OPSEU as the bargaining agent for that unit following a representation vote.
Paramedics found to be excluded technical personnel under existing collective agreement; certification application timely.
The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of paramedics employed by the municipality.
The intervenor union claimed it already held bargaining rights for these employees under its existing collective agreement for 'outside' workers, which would render the application untimely.
The Board found that the paramedics fell within the 'technical personnel' exclusion in the intervenor's collective agreement, as their core duties involved performing controlled medical acts.
The Board also determined that an all-paramedic bargaining unit was appropriate.
The application was found timely, and the parties were directed to file submissions regarding a post-vote complaint.
Applicant directed to provide written submissions explaining excessive delay in filing duty of fair representation complaint.
The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, concerning the union's withdrawal of his overtime grievance.
The responding party employer requested the application be dismissed for failure to make out a prima facie case and for excessive delay.
The Board noted a delay of at least nine months, and arguably more than two years, in filing the application.
The Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining the delay before determining whether to dismiss the application or proceed to the prima facie motion.
Unfair labour practice complaint dismissed; employer proved termination was for poor performance, not union activity.
The applicant, a bartender, alleged he was terminated for his union organizing activities in violation of the Labour Relations Act.
The employer maintained he was terminated due to poor bar sales and indifference to customers, and denied any knowledge of union activity.
The Board found the employer successfully discharged its burden of proof, demonstrating the termination was solely performance-related and that management had no knowledge of the highly secretive organizing campaign.
Board permits union to amend bargaining unit position post-vote and affirms jurisdiction to issue two certificates.
The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification, initially proposing a single full-time bargaining unit.
The intervenor union and the employer took varying positions on whether there were one or two bargaining units (full-time and part-time).
After the representation vote, the applicant sought to amend its position to either seek two certificates or a combined unit.
The intervenor argued that amending the proposed unit after the employer's response undermined the section 8.1 objection process.
The Board held that amendments are permissible absent prejudice, and that the employer had effectively abandoned its section 8.1 objection.
Relying on its plenary jurisdiction under section 6(1) of the Act, the Board directed the counting of the part-time ballots and indicated it would issue two certificates if the applicant prevailed.
Employer's appeal of Order to Pay withdrawn; funds held in trust ordered disbursed to employee.
The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.
On the date scheduled for the hearing, the applicant sought leave to withdraw its application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw and ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed, with $3,566.63 paid to the employee and $460.83 retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the administration fee.
Board lacks jurisdiction under s. 69(6) to determine seniority rights following a sale of business.
Following a sale of a business and the intermingling of employees, a representation vote was held and Local 3264 was declared the successful bargaining agent.
Local 774 requested the Board to determine which collective agreement should apply and to determine the relative seniority of the employees now represented by Local 3264.
The Board held that under section 69(6) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, it lacks the jurisdiction to determine seniority rights.
The Board further held that the scheme of section 69 anticipates that the collective agreement of the successful trade union applies to the entire bargaining unit.
The Board declared that the predecessor collective agreement no longer bound the employer and amended the successful union's bargaining unit description accordingly.
Request for reconsideration of certification vote dismissed for being filed beyond the 20-day time limit.
An employee filed correspondence with the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which the Board treated as a request for reconsideration of a prior decision directing a representation vote and dismissing a certification application.
The employee argued that the ballot should have included a non-union option and that the Board had improperly conferred trade union status on the intervenor.
The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration as it was filed beyond the 20-day time limit without good reason.
The Board also clarified that it had not made a finding of trade union status for the intervenor, and that a non-union option was not appropriate on the ballot because the intervenor claimed existing bargaining rights.
Adjournment request denied; inconvenience and potential monetary loss to witnesses do not warrant rescheduling.
The applicant union requested an adjournment of scheduled hearing dates to accommodate the work schedules of two key advisors who would otherwise lose commission earnings during a busy sales period.
The responding party opposed the request.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the adjournment, finding that the reasons advanced were not sufficiently compelling and that the Board could not function efficiently if it adopted a policy of absolute accommodation of all scheduling interests.
Application withdrawn following an agreement between the parties.
The applicant filed an application against the responding party.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties dated November 8, 2000, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the matter withdrawn.
Application adjourned sine die on consent for up to one year.
The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.
The Board consented to the adjournment, noting the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.