Representation vote ordered in displacement application, but ballot box sealed pending hearing on injunction.
The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.
The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.
The intervenor argued that a Superior Court injunction prevented the vote or required the ballot box to be sealed.
The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to determine the effect of the injunction.
Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit of university counsellors.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of counsellors employed by Laurentian University.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with segregated ballots for disputed positions such as career counsellors and personal development counsellors.
Representation vote ordered in application for certification after union established sufficient membership support.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The parties agreed on the description of the appropriate bargaining unit.
The Board determined that the applicant established sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.
A representation vote was ordered for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.
Representation vote ordered for nursing home employees in application for certification.
The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party nursing home.
The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate for collective bargaining.
Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board determined that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.
The Board found sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.
The intervenor union argued that a Superior Court injunction against certain individuals formerly associated with it prevented the vote or required the ballot box to be sealed.
The Board ordered the vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing on the effect of the injunction.
Board ordered a representation vote in a displacement application but sealed the ballot box pending a hearing.
The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had the requisite membership support to order a representation vote.
The intervenor union requested that the application be dismissed or the vote delayed due to a Superior Court injunction against individuals formerly associated with the intervenor.
The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to consider the impact of the Court's order.
Representation vote ordered in displacement application, but ballot box sealed pending hearing on court injunction.
The intervenor union, which currently represents the employees, requested that the application be dismissed or the vote delayed due to a Superior Court injunction against individuals formerly associated with the intervenor.
The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing on the effect of the court order.
Representation vote ordered in displacement certification application, with ballot box sealed pending hearing on objections.
The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.
The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.
The intervenor argued that a recent Superior Court injunction against individuals associated with the applicant precluded the vote, or alternatively, that the ballot box should be sealed.
The responding party also raised issues regarding the bargaining unit estimate under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and the timeliness of the application under section 67.
The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing on the outstanding issues.
A partial dissent would have also explicitly relied on section 8.1(4) to seal the ballot box.
Orders to pay reduced to $22,500 on consent following settlement agreement.
The applicant sought a review of two Orders to Pay totaling $73,421.93 under the Employment Standards Act.
The parties reached a settlement agreement.
The Board ordered the applicant's total liability reduced to $22,500, with the Ministry of Labour directed to refund the balance of the funds held in trust to the applicant.
The Ministry was also directed to pay $1,200 to the individual claimant who appeared at the hearing.
Representation vote ordered in displacement certification application, with ballot box sealed pending hearing on preliminary issues.
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 responding party and intervenor also raised issues regarding the timeliness of the application and the effect of a recent Superior Court injunction.
The Board ordered a representation vote but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing on the timeliness and injunction issues.
One Board member dissented in part, arguing that section 8.1(4) independently required the ballot box to be sealed.
The intervenor argued that a Superior Court injunction against certain individuals associated with the applicant precluded a vote.
The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing on the effect of the injunction.
Representation vote ordered in displacement application but ballot box sealed pending hearing on injunction.
The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent part-time employees currently represented by the intervenor.
The intervenor argued that a Superior Court injunction against individuals formerly associated with it prevented the vote or required sealing the ballot box.
The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to determine the effect of the injunction and a related Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act application.
Representation vote ordered in displacement certification application, with ballot box sealed pending hearing on injunction.
The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor union.
The intervenor argued that a recent Superior Court of Justice injunction order prevented the vote, or alternatively, that the ballot box should be sealed pending a hearing.
The Board directed that a representation vote be held but ordered the ballot box sealed until a hearing could be held to consider the impact of the Court's order and a related Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act application.
The intervenor union argued that a recent Superior Court injunction against individuals formerly associated with it prevented the vote or required the ballot box to be sealed.
The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to determine the effect of the injunction on the Board's processes.
The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support and ordered a representation vote.
However, because the intervenor raised concerns about a recent Superior Court injunction against individuals now associated with the applicant, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed and the ballots not counted until a hearing could be held to determine the effect of the court order on the Board's processes.
The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification for employees currently represented by the intervenor.
The intervenor argued that a recent Superior Court injunction against individuals formerly associated with the intervenor prevented the vote or required the ballot box to be sealed.
The Board ordered the vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to determine the effect of the Court's order.
Duty of fair representation application dismissed; union's interpretation of seniority rights for preferential hires was reasonable.
The applicant, a preferential hire following a plant closure, alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.
The applicant claimed the union improperly interpreted the Job and Income Security Program by restricting his ability to use company-wide seniority to claim severance options in the event of permanent job loss at his new plant.
The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's interpretation of the collective agreement and its letters of understanding was reasonable, rational from a labour relations perspective, and neither arbitrary, discriminatory, nor in bad faith.
Employee's employment standards appeal dismissed for failure to appear; employer's appeal subsequently withdrawn.
The employer and the employee both appealed an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.
The officer had directed the employer to pay vacation pay and unpaid wages, but found the employee was not entitled to termination pay due to wilful misconduct.
A hearing was scheduled, but the employee failed to appear.
The Ministry of Labour, supported by the employer, moved to dismiss the employee's appeal for abandonment.
The Board dismissed the employee's appeal due to his failure to appear.
Consequently, the employer withdrew its appeal with leave of the Board, and the funds held in trust were ordered to be disbursed to the employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Consent order issued resolving grievances over scaffolding work assignment and collective agreement violations for $15,000.
The applicant union referred two grievances to arbitration under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
On the second day of the hearing, the parties entered into minutes of settlement.
The employer acknowledged it was bound by the Carpenters Provincial Collective Agreement, admitted to violating it, and agreed to pay $15,000 to the union.
The employer also agreed that scaffolding work is covered by the agreement and will be assigned to union members.
The Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement.
OHSA reprisal complaint dismissed; probationary employee was terminated for a fraudulent property claim, not safety concerns.
The applicant, a probationary employee, filed a complaint alleging that his employment was terminated in reprisal for raising health and safety concerns regarding a falling ratchet gun, contrary to section 50(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The employer maintained that the applicant was terminated for submitting a fraudulent property claim for damaged work boots.
The Board found that the decision to terminate was made independently by labour relations personnel who had no knowledge of the applicant's safety concerns, and was based on an honestly held belief that the property claim was fraudulent.
Finding no anti-safety animus, the Board dismissed the complaint and declined to substitute a lesser penalty under section 50(7).