Russell Goodfellow

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

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.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her unfair labour practice complaint against her union.

The original decision found that the union's conduct in seeking to enforce strike solidarity was 'social pressure' rather than unlawful intimidation or coercion under section 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant argued that the strike may have been unlawful and that her Charter rights were violated.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the Charter does not apply to private parties like trade unions and that the applicant had not previously raised the issue of an unlawful strike.

The employer appealed a decision of an Employment Standards Officer requiring it to pay termination pay to the employee.

The employer argued the employee quit, while the employee claimed he was laid off.

The Board found that the employer agreed to lay off the employee for medical reasons to allow him to collect Employment Insurance, rather than requiring him to quit.

Having chosen to effect a lay-off, the employer was required to pay termination pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the responding trade union breached section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by repeatedly denying her applications for membership.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding no arguable case.

The Board held that section 74 regulates the quality of representation a trade union provides to employees vis-à-vis their employer, and does not govern a union's internal decisions regarding admission into membership.

The applicant union and responding school board 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 will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicants filed applications against the responding party.

Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement filed with the Board, the applications were withdrawn.

The Board received a request for reconsideration of its May 12, 2000 decision.

The Board directed the applicant and responding party to file their responses to the request by June 16, 2000.

The applicants sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to find termination pay owing to employees formerly employed by a housekeeping service.

The application proceeded in respect of one employee whose employment was terminated when the previous employer lost its service contract to the responding party.

The Board found that the employee was not offered employment by the responding party, nor was notice of termination or pay in lieu provided.

Relying on section 13.1(4) of the Employment Standards Act, the Board ordered the responding party to pay the employee $239.25 as pay in lieu of notice.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a December 16, 1999 decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board noted its broad discretion to reconsider decisions under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but emphasized that good and valid reasons are required.

Finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue the case and that the request did not fall within any recognized grounds for reconsideration, the Board dismissed the request.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision to correct an error in its previous decision dated December 31, 1999.

The Board amended the bargaining unit description for the employees of the responding party and directed that an amended certificate be issued to the applicant union.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at Bruce Retirement Villa.

The intervenor union requested the application be dismissed for non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Procedure or postponed pending a contempt motion and raiding charges.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's requests, noting the postponement issues were addressed in other decisions and no particulars supported the non-compliance claim.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered a certificate to issue to the applicant.

The applicant, Canadian Union of Public Employees, sought to withdraw its application against Barton Place Nursing Home.

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

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervenor requested a postponement of the disposition pending a contempt motion in Superior Court and the resolution of raiding charges by the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board denied the postponement, noting it agreed with other Board decisions dealing with these requests.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots cast in the representation vote were in favour of the applicant, the Board granted certification and ordered a certificate to issue.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of nurses.

The intervenor requested that the application be dismissed under section 8.1 of the Act and that the disposition be postponed pending a contempt motion and raiding charges.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's requests, noting that section 8.1 is only available to employers, not trade unions.

Having regard to the representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board granted certification.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervenor requested the application be dismissed for non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Procedure, or postponed pending a related contempt motion and raiding charges.

The Board rejected these requests, finding no particulars to decline giving effect to the representation vote.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon unit of therapy staff at the responding party's treatment centre.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervenor requested a postponement of the disposition pending a contempt motion in Superior Court and raiding charges before the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board denied the postponement request, noting it had dealt with similar requests in other decisions.

Based on the representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent office and clerical employees of the Community Care Access Centre of the District of Thunder Bay.

The intervenor union requested that the application be dismissed for non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Procedure, or postponed pending a contempt motion and raiding charges.

The Board rejected the intervenor's requests, noting the postponement issues were addressed in other decisions and no particulars supported dismissing the application.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party nursing home.

The intervenor union requested that the application be dismissed for alleged non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Procedure, or postponed pending a contempt motion in Superior Court and raiding charges before the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board rejected these requests, noting a lack of particulars for dismissal and relying on prior Board decisions regarding postponement.

As more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast in the representation vote were in favour of the applicant, the Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon unit of employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's centre.

The intervenor union requested a postponement of the disposition pending a contempt motion and raiding charges, which the Board denied, consistent with its other decisions.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board granted the certification and ordered a certificate to issue.