Russell Goodfellow

The applicant filed a reply to a previous Board decision.

The Board directed the responding party and intervenor to respond by a specified date.

If they maintain their request to dismiss the application without a consultation, they must provide reasons assuming all facts pleaded by the applicant are true.

If no replies are received, the matter will be listed for consultation.

The applicant filed an application against the Toronto Transit Commission and the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113.

The parties subsequently filed Minutes of Settlement with the Ontario Labour Relations Board requesting that the application be withdrawn.

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union approximately two and a half years after his employment was terminated.

The union and the employer requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant attributed the delay to his former counsel's failure to act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was aware of his statutory rights and could not rely on the alleged shortcomings of counsel to excuse a 16-month period of complete inactivity.

The applicants filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 regarding the integration of their seniority following a 1992/1993 workforce merger.

The union and the intervenor employer requested that the application be dismissed due to delay.

The Board exercised its discretion to decline to inquire into the matter, finding that the delay of six or seven years was extreme and that the time for filing a complaint should be measured in months, not years.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a certification vote, the employer and intervening employees challenged the results, arguing that a late change in polling times provided insufficient notice to employees and that a union official engaged in inappropriate conduct during the organizing campaign.

The Board dismissed the challenges, finding that the parties' extensive efforts to communicate the vote details and the high voter turnout offset any deficiencies in formal notice.

The Board also held that the union official's alleged rude behaviour did not constitute an unfair labour practice or threaten the integrity of the vote.

The union was certified.

The applicant filed a complaint against the responding party union, with the employer intervening.

Following a consultation, the parties agreed the applicant would consider private mediation/arbitration and advise the Board.

Instead, the applicant sent multiple letters seeking to defer scheduling until another matter was resolved.

The Board adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year and directed the applicant to clarify his legal representation.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed.

The applicant, a director of a bankrupt restaurant, appealed an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay $1,906.78 in unpaid wages and vacation pay to eight employees.

At the hearing, the Ministry noted a calculation error, bringing the total to $2,578.93.

The applicant conceded liability for $859.96 in unpaid wages but testified that all vacation pay had been paid, producing some cancelled cheques and explaining that the remaining records were with a co-director.

The adjudicator found the applicant credible and concluded no vacation pay was owed, substituting an order to pay $859.96 for unpaid wages.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a breach of the union's duty of fair representation under section 74.

The responding trade union and intervenor employer requested that the application be dismissed for failing to establish an arguable case.

The Board directed the applicant to file a detailed written reply addressing the factual statements and specifying the union's alleged breaches, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the union breached the Act by advancing a grievance on behalf of a senior employee who competed with the applicant for a job.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case of a breach.

A trade union does not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith by advancing the interests of a senior employee in a job posting competition, even under a relative ability clause.

Furthermore, the union had already withdrawn the grievance.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union four and a half years after a settlement agreement was reached regarding his discharge grievance.

The applicant claimed psychiatric difficulties prevented him from filing earlier.

The Board dismissed the application due to extreme delay, noting the prejudice to the union and employer, and observing that the applicant had managed to file a human rights complaint during the intervening period.

The parties attended a consultation at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Prior to the consultation, they met with a Labour Relations Officer and executed Minutes of Settlement.

At the request of the applicant, the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against the responding parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed materials filed by the parties and determined that the application would not be dismissed without a consultation.

The Registrar was directed to set a date for the consultation.

The applicant sought an adjournment of the application.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant, Toronto Civic Employees' Union, Local 416, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, The Toronto Public Library Board.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The parties requested an adjournment of the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the request and adjourned the matter to August 18, 2000.

The applicant union and responding employers agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer and the employee entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve the matter.

The Board ordered the disbursement of the funds held in trust by the Director in accordance with the settlement and terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.