Stephen Raymond

The applicant employer appealed two Orders to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act in respect of three former retail clerks.

The employer disputed the amounts owed for termination pay, vacation pay, overtime pay, public holiday pay, and unauthorized deductions.

During the hearing, two of the employees decided to pursue only the amounts in the Orders to Pay, while the employer agreed that the third employee was owed an additional amount.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Orders to Pay were correct and supported by the facts, dismissing the applications for review and ordering the disbursement of funds held in trust, plus the agreed additional amount.

The applicant, a probationary employee, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for failing to grieve his dismissal.

The union and the employer argued that under the collective agreement, probationary employees have no right to grieve a dismissal.

The Board dismissed the application at the consultation stage for failing to make out a prima facie case, finding that the union acted in compliance with the Act by deciding not to file a grievance that had no possibility of success.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent ambulance paramedics and attendants employed by the responding party.

The parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement providing for a hearing and a subsequent representation vote, agreeing that ballots from a previous vote would not be counted.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken on August 10, 2000, for the agreed voting constituency, with the eligibility date to be determined at the upcoming hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board received correspondence and a petition following its June 14, 2000 decision.

The Board directed the applicant to make any submissions in response to the correspondence and file them by July 19, 2000.

Two unions, CAW-Canada and CHCW, filed displacement applications for certification to represent employees of Grey County Homes for the Aged, Grey Gables.

A representation vote was held with a 100% turnout.

The incumbent union raised objections regarding notice issues, which the Board dismissed given the full voter turnout.

More than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of CHCW.

The Board certified CHCW as the bargaining agent and dismissed CAW-Canada's application.

The Board considered two double displacement applications for certification.

A representation vote was held, and the Service Employees International Union, Local 220 requested the ballot box be sealed due to alleged notice issues and an error in the initial bargaining unit description.

The Board dismissed the objections, noting an 88% voter turnout, which demonstrated sufficient notice.

As more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the Canadian Health Care Workers (CHCW), the Board certified CHCW as the bargaining agent and dismissed the application by CAW-Canada.

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

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

The applicant filed an application but failed to provide adequate particulars as previously ordered by the Board.

The responding party requested that the application be dismissed.

The Board reviewed the submitted particulars and found they did not comply with Rule 26(d) of the Board's Rules of Procedure, as they failed to detail the material facts, circumstances, and persons involved.

Noting that the related application for certification had already been dismissed and a bar issued, the Board dismissed this application.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Board issued a final decision without a hearing.

The Board found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant appealed an Inspector's Order.

Notice of the hearing was sent to the applicant, but the applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

Upon hearing the representations of the responding parties, the Board dismissed the appeal.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, Local 13571, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Commercial Aluminum (1993) Limited.

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

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 application would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, The Valley and District Association for Community Living.

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

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

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the responding party union, the Board declared that the union does not represent the employees of the applicant.

Previously scheduled meeting and hearing dates were cancelled.

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 its application against the responding party.

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

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

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The employer, General Motors, notified the Board that it received an incomplete copy of the application, missing every other page.

The Board directed the applicant to re-serve the application on the employer and granted the employer a ten-day extension to file its response from the date of re-service.

The applicant union requested production of documents from the responding parties and submitted that the responding parties may not have filed all material upon which they intend to rely.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding parties to respond to the applicant's request by July 19, 2000, after which any outstanding issues could be referred to the Board.

The Board also reminded the responding parties of their obligation to file all documents they intend to rely on at least ten days prior to the hearing.