Stephen Raymond

The Ministry of Labour requested an adjournment of an appeal hearing under the Occupational Health and Safety Act because the Inspector was on a leave of absence and unavailable to testify.

The appellant union opposed the adjournment, citing the serious and ongoing nature of the health and safety issue.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that the Ministry had taken reasonable steps, the request was reasonable, and proceeding would prejudice both the Ministry and the employer.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application against the responding party union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant withdrew its appeal by letter dated September 14, 2000.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the matter.

The applicant union and responding employer consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

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

The applicants requested a further extension of time to file submissions until September 19, 2000.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and directed that the responding party would have two weeks from that date to file any responding submissions.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die or, alternatively, to withdraw its application.

The responding party opposed both requests.

The Board denied the adjournment but permitted the applicant to withdraw its application.

The scheduled hearing was cancelled.

The applicant and the responding employer failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Ministry of Labour was represented.

Without any indication as to why the applicant and employer failed to appear, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The applicants requested an extension of time limits for filing their submissions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the applicants' deadline to September 15, 2000, and giving the responding parties until September 19, 2000, to make their submissions.

The applicant filed an application against the responding parties.

The parties reached a settlement, and the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

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

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 1(4) and 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties reached a settlement wherein the applicant assumed the exclusive bargaining rights of the responding union with respect to the respondent employer's employees, and the seniority lists were merged.

The Board issued orders to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement and the application was withdrawn with leave.

The applicant union and the responding employers reached a settlement regarding a successor employer application under the Labour Relations Act.

The parties agreed that 3517616 Canada Inc. is a successor employer bound by the collective agreement, and Cotton Valley Enterprises Inc. agreed not to sublease to non-unionized companies in the future.

The application against 1252115 Ontario Ltd. was withdrawn.

The Board issued orders and declarations in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement, including a payment of $1,000 to the applicant.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay for outstanding vacation and termination pay in respect of two employees.

The employer led evidence that the employees were casual employees.

The Ministry of Labour agreed that under section 2(f) of Regulation 327 to the Employment Standards Act, casual employees who may elect to work or not are not entitled to termination pay.

The employer did not dispute the vacation pay entitlement.

The Board varied the Order to Pay, directing the vacation pay to the employees and returning the termination pay portion to the employer.

The applicant union applied for certification and a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

Based on the agreement, the Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and, following a successful representation vote, directed that a certificate issue.

The Board also declared Meadowcroft Group Limited and 5M Management Services Inc. to be related employers, and dismissed the related employer application against the other responding parties.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the consent adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicants brought an application alleging that the responding union and its representatives breached their duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding parties argued the application should be dismissed for failing to set out a prima facie case, asserting that section 74 does not apply to internal union matters such as the amalgamation of locals.

The Board directed the applicants to file written submissions on whether the application ought to be dismissed.

The applicant appealed an inspector's orders under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

At the hearing, the applicant stated it did not dispute any of the orders, but rather hoped the hearing would lead to the Ministry of Labour ordering dedicated risers for electrical heating systems in high-rise residential buildings.

The Board dismissed the application as the applicant did not seek to change the orders, and directed the applicant to contact the Ministry directly regarding its request.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave for the application to be withdrawn.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether St. Mary's Manor is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

Based on written submissions, the Board found that St. Mary's Manor, which provides care and supervision to elderly residents, meets the plain meaning of a 'home for the aged'.

Consequently, the Board advised the Minister that St. Mary's Manor is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Act.

The responding party, the Niagara Regional Police Services Board, requested an adjournment of the hearing, with the consent of the Ministry of Labour but over the objection of the applicant Association.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting that the dispute regarding interim health and safety measures during the implementation of a new communications system might be resolved within the requested timeframe.

The matter was rescheduled and directions for document exchange were issued.