Representation vote directed in application for certification after finding trade union status and sufficient membership support.
The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties on the appropriate bargaining unit and finding 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.
Request for reconsideration of decision ordering sealed representation vote on narrower bargaining unit denied.
The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision ordering a sealed representation vote on a narrower bargaining unit than the one proposed by the employer.
The employer argued this departed from usual practice and prejudiced its right to challenge the proposed unit.
The Board denied the request, finding no prejudice as the appropriateness of the bargaining unit remained in dispute and the employer would have a full opportunity to make submissions.
The dissenting member would have granted the request and postponed consideration pending the outcome of a related file.
Consent adjournment of hearing granted.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for February 3, 2000.
With the consent of both responding parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment and referred the matter to the Registrar for rescheduling.
Unopposed application for declaration of successor union rights granted.
The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor, the Certified Staff Association.
The application was unopposed.
The Board granted the application and issued the requested declaration.
Appeal of health and safety inspector's order regarding inadequate portable toilets on construction site dismissed.
The applicant, a supplier of portable toilets, appealed an inspector's order issued to a constructor regarding inadequate toilet and clean-up facilities at a construction site.
The inspector found that the portable toilets lacked functioning traps, paper towels, and hot running water, contrary to O. Reg. 213/91.
The Board found the inspector's evidence credible and uncontradicted regarding the state of the facilities on the day of inspection.
The Board dismissed the appeal, concluding that the order was justified and that the applicant was not prejudiced by any alleged lack of clarity in the order.
Board directs applicant to provide further particulars of unfair labour practice allegations before ruling on motion to dismiss.
The applicant union filed applications for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding employer and incumbent union.
The incumbent union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the unfair labour practice complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
The Board directed the applicant to provide further particulars regarding allegations that the incumbent union's officials defamed an applicant representative by accusing him of theft and forgery.
The Board deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss until the particulars and responses were filed.
Union's request to dismiss duty of fair representation complaint without a hearing denied.
The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The responding union requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing on the basis that the facts alleged did not make out a prima facie case.
The Board reviewed the application and found that a prima facie case was made out.
The union's request was denied, and the matter was directed to be processed in the normal course.
Board directed parties to provide submissions on the timeliness of a termination of bargaining rights application.
The applicant applied for a declaration terminating the union's bargaining rights.
The union contended the application was untimely under section 67(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because a conciliation officer had been appointed and the collective agreement had expired.
The Board directed the applicant and the employer to provide submissions in response to the union's position on timeliness.
Representation vote ordered for single-location bargaining unit with ballot box sealed pending related application.
The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at one location of the responding party's hair salon business.
The responding party argued that the only appropriate bargaining unit would encompass all seven of its locations, as it had in a previous application by the same union for a different location.
The responding party requested that the Board postpone consideration of this application pending the outcome of the previous application.
The Board declined to postpone, finding that the employees' interest in an expeditious vote outweighed the disruption of a further vote.
The Board ordered a representation vote for the single-location voting constituency, with the ballot box to be sealed pending the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit in the related file.
One Board Member dissented, arguing that the application should have been postponed or the vote held on the broader voting constituency.
Representation vote directed in application for certification of bookstore employees.
The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party's bookstores in Toronto and Mississauga.
The 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 at the time the application was made.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.
Representation vote ordered for proposed bargaining unit in union certification application.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and that it established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to obtain a representation vote.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency.
Application for review of Order to Pay dismissed after applicant failed to appear at hearing.
The applicant employer sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.
The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.
The Ministry of Labour and the responding employee moved to dismiss the application.
The Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear and discharge its onus of proof.
A subsequent letter from the applicant citing weather conditions was received after the dismissal and declined by the Board.
Employment standards matter terminated following Minutes of Settlement between the parties.
The applicant and the responding party, West End Chrysler Dodge, reached Minutes of Settlement.
Having regard to the settlement, the Board terminated the matter.
Post-decision request for return of trust funds regarding an employee not addressed at hearing denied.
Following a decision partially allowing the applicant's review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay, the applicant requested the return of funds allegedly paid in trust for another employee.
The Board denied the request, noting that no evidence or submissions regarding the other employee were presented at the hearing, the applicant's materials made no reference to him, and there appeared to be no further funds available to disburse in the file.
Hearing adjourned on consent due to the illness of the responding employer's principal.
The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.
At the outset of the hearing, the responding employer requested an adjournment because its principal was too ill to attend.
The applicant and the Ministry of Labour consented to the adjournment.
The Board granted the adjournment and referred the matter to the Registrar for re-scheduling.
Reconsideration of decision imposing one-year bar on certification application denied.
The applicant trade union requested reconsideration of a Board decision that granted leave to withdraw its application for certification and imposed a one-year bar on further applications under s. 7(10) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The applicant argued that it had intended for the application to be dismissed without a bar, as a previous panel had found the application to be untimely for full-time employees.
The Board declined to reconsider, finding that its conclusion that the applicant was withdrawing its application was reasonable based on the applicant's correspondence stating it did not wish to pursue the matter further.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant, Winburn Investments Inc., requested to withdraw its application against the Ministry of Labour.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the matter.
Union certified after Board dismisses employee objections to representation vote process.
The applicant union applied for certification.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the union, an employee filed written submissions protesting certain aspects of the vote and requesting a second vote.
The employee raised concerns about agreements on segregated ballots, employees allegedly fearful of voting, lack of notice, and alleged coercion.
The Board dismissed the employee's objections, finding that the parties were entitled to agree on the voters list and segregated ballots, the fears of disclosure were unfounded, proper notice was posted, and there was no evidence of coercion.
The Board certified the applicant union as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.
Section 75 application dismissed as facts did not involve a hiring hall; section 74 application allowed to proceed.
The applicant filed an application alleging the union violated sections 74 and 75 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to support his grievance regarding classification and wages.
The union requested that both applications be dismissed without a hearing.
The Board dismissed the section 75 application, finding that the facts pleaded did not relate to a hiring hall situation.
However, the Board declined to dismiss the section 74 application, finding that a prima facie case was established and there was no excessive delay in filing.
The Board also ruled that the employer could not be named as a responding party in such applications and amended the style of cause to name the employer as an intervenor.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed due to unexplained three-year delay.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union more than three years after an arbitrator dismissed his grievance regarding his discharge from employment.
The responding party brought a motion to dismiss the application for excessive delay.
The applicant attributed the delay to ignorance of the law, financial difficulties, ineffective consultants, and waiting for a WSIB claim outcome.
The Board found these explanations unsatisfactory, noting that excusable delay should be measured in months rather than years, and dismissed the application.