Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
The applicant, I.W.A. Canada, Local 2693, submitted correspondence to the Ontario Labour Relations Board requesting to withdraw its application against McKenzie Forest Products Inc. The Board acknowledged the correspondence and ordered the matter withdrawn.
Applicants directed to respond to union's pleadings before Board considers motion to dismiss duty of fair representation complaint.
The applicants filed an application alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The union requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing under Rule 46 for failing to plead a prima facie case.
The Board noted the application was sparse and directed the applicants' representative to respond to the union's pleadings before making a final determination on the request for dismissal.
The applicant requested to withdraw the application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the matter was withdrawn.
Unopposed request for adjournment of scheduled hearing dates granted.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates.
As there was no opposition from the responding party or intervenors, the Board granted the adjournment and directed the Registrar to schedule four new hearing dates.
Application for termination of bargaining rights dismissed after representation vote failed to reach majority opposition.
The applicants filed an application for termination of bargaining rights under section 63(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
A representation vote was held and the ballot box was initially sealed.
At the hearing, the intervenor and applicants moved to count the ballots, which the responding party opposed.
The Board directed the ballots be counted, finding no serious prejudice to the responding party.
As not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the responding party, the application was dismissed.
Commission-only employee working from employer's office is not exempt from minimum wage protections.
The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer, which found that the responding employee was entitled to minimum wages and vacation pay for his nine-week period of employment.
The employer argued that the employee was hired on a commission-only basis and was exempt from minimum wage protections as a commissioned salesperson under Regulation 325.
The Board found that the employee, who spent almost his entire employment period working out of the employer's office making telephone calls, did not fall within the exemption for salespersons who normally make sales away from the employer's place of business.
The application was dismissed and the Order to Pay was upheld.
Board issues consent order declaring concerted refusal to work overtime an unlawful strike.
The applicant employer filed an application alleging that the responding union and its members engaged in an unlawful strike by concertedly refusing to work overtime.
The parties entered into a memorandum of settlement acknowledging that the concerted refusal to work overtime constituted an unlawful strike under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board issued a consent order directing the employees to cease the overtime ban and any other concerted activity contrary to the Act, and terminated the proceedings.
Applications withdrawn at the request of the applicant union.
The applicant union requested to withdraw its applications.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the matters were withdrawn.
Board directed responding party to file submissions explaining its jurisdictional challenge.
The Board inadvertently issued a draft decision, which it revoked and replaced.
The applicant failed to address the responding party's jurisdictional challenge in his written submissions.
The Board directed the responding party to file submissions explaining its claim that the Board lacks jurisdiction, after which the Board will consider the request to dismiss the matter without a hearing.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed after applicant refused to consent to disclosure of medical records.
The applicant filed a section 74 duty of fair representation complaint against the union.
During the proceedings, the intervenor employer sought to produce the applicant's medical documentation to the union but required the applicant's written consent to avoid liability under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.
The applicant refused to provide consent, arguing the union already had sufficient information and that the records contained irrelevant information about a prior injury.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's refusal to disclose sensitive but potentially critical information prejudiced the union's ability to defend the application.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed; union reasonably relied on video evidence of extortion attempt.
The applicant, a former union official, was terminated by his employer for allegedly attempting to extort $150,000 in exchange for facilitating an undisruptive collective bargaining process.
The union reviewed video evidence provided by the employer and heard contradictory explanations from the applicant before deciding not to pursue his grievance.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's investigation was reasonable and its decision not to advance the grievance did not violate section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.
Termination pay awarded; unauthorized absence did not constitute wilful misconduct where employer condoned similar behaviour.
The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.
The applicant had given notice of resignation but was terminated prior to his departure date after leaving the plant for a short period without punching out.
The Board found that the employer had condoned similar behaviour by another employee and that the applicant's conduct did not amount to wilful misconduct or neglect of duty.
The application was allowed and the employer was ordered to pay two weeks' termination pay.
Matter adjourned sine die for up to one year upon applicant's request.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the proceedings.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated without further notice.
Individuals declared successor employer and bound by collective agreement on consent.
The applicant union sought a declaration that the individual responding parties were the successor employer.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared the named individuals to be the successor employer and bound by the applicable collective agreement.
Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Debro Steel.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.
Union certification granted; intervenor's objections to representation vote and request for postponement dismissed.
The applicant union applied for certification to displace the intervenor union.
Following a representation vote in which the applicant received over 50 percent of the ballots, the intervenor objected, alleging that the responding party's scrutineer improperly acted on behalf of the applicant and intimidated voters.
The Board dismissed the objection, finding no evidence that the vote did not reflect the employees' true wishes.
The Board also rejected the intervenor's request to postpone the issuance of a certificate pending the outcome of a contempt motion and Canadian Labour Congress proceedings, noting that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 directs the Board to certify the applicant when it wins the vote.
A certificate was ordered to issue.
Application processing suspended pending applicant's service of complete materials on responding party and employer.
The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The responding union advised the Board that it did not receive the complete application with attachments.
The Board directed that it will not process the application further until the applicant serves all materials on the responding party and the employer, setting a deadline of May 12, 2000, failing which the application will be terminated.
Board issues union certificate following successful representation vote, dismissing intervenor's request for postponement.
The applicant union applied for certification and won a representation vote.
The intervenor union requested that the Board postpone issuing a certificate pending the disposition of a contempt motion in Superior Court and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.
The Board declined to postpone the issuance of the certificate, finding no valid reason to delay the final determination and noting that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires certification where more than 50 percent of ballots are cast in favour of the applicant.
A certificate was issued to the applicant.
Board issues union certificate following successful representation vote, declining to delay for external proceedings.
The applicant union applied for certification and won a representation vote among the employees of the responding party.
The intervenor union requested that the Board delay issuing a certificate until its contempt motion in Superior Court or internal Canadian Labour Congress proceedings were resolved.
The Board declined to postpone the issuance of the certificate, noting that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires certification when more than 50 percent of ballots are cast in favour of the applicant.
Board issues certificate to applicant union, declining to postpone decision pending intervenor's contempt motion.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Grand River Hospital Corporation.
The intervenor union requested that the Board postpone its decision pending the outcome of a contempt motion in Superior Court and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.
The Board declined to postpone the decision, noting that previous panels had already rejected similar arguments and that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires the Board to certify the applicant when more than 50 percent of the ballots cast in a representation vote are in its favour.
As the representation vote resulted in more than 50 percent of ballots cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.