Timothy W. Sargeant

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent warehouse production employees of the responding party.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Although the certificate of service indicated the application was sent by regular mail, both the responding party and the employer informed the Board they had not received it.

The Board directed the applicant to serve a copy of the application on both the responding party and the employer.

The applicant requested an order directing production of documents from the responding party employer prior to the first day of the hearing.

The Board directed the employer to produce the documents set out in the applicant's correspondence by a specified date, or advise the Board and the applicant of any documents not produced and the reasons why.

Any disputes regarding production were left to be addressed at the hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year, having regard to the agreement of the parties.

The applications will be deemed terminated without further notice if neither party requests to proceed within that time.

The applicant union previously withdrew its application for certification.

Following the withdrawal, the responding employer sought various rulings and confirmations from the Board.

The Board declined to make any further rulings, finding that the matter was terminated upon withdrawal and no useful labour relations purpose would be served by granting the requests.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union for failing to file a grievance after she was injured at work and no suitable accommodated position was found.

At the consultation hearing, the union agreed to file a grievance regarding the employer's duty to accommodate, and the employer agreed not to raise timeliness objections.

The Board ordered the union to file the grievance immediately and adjourned the complaint for up to one year, declining the applicant's request to hire her own representative at this stage.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 alleging a breach of section 74.

The responding party submitted that the application did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the application failed to detail the orders or remedies requested and lacked specific material facts as required by Rule 26.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to file a new, compliant application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her application after she and her counsel failed to attend a scheduled consultation meeting.

The applicant's counsel explained that the failure to attend was due to an inadvertent administrative oversight, as the date was not entered into his personal diary and he was on vacation.

The Board denied the request for reconsideration, finding that inadvertence by counsel does not fall within the established principles for reconsideration, which require new evidence that could not have been obtained by reasonable diligence or representations that a party had no opportunity to raise previously.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The claimant did not appear at the hearing.

The employer admitted owing certain funds but disputed the amount awarded for two hours of training.

The Board varied the Order to Pay, finding that the training amount should not have been granted, and ordered the remaining wages and vacation pay to be paid to the claimant.

The employer appealed an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay, arguing that the employee had quit and was therefore not entitled to termination pay.

The employee contended that he was fired after a dispute over a new position and working conditions.

The Board found that the employee did not form the subjective intent to resign and that the employer had forced the alleged resignation.

The Board concluded that the employee was terminated and upheld the Order to Pay.

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

The employer and the employee reached a settlement, pursuant to which the employer withdrew its appeal and the parties agreed that funds held in trust by the Director of Employment Practices would be disbursed to the employer.

The Board ordered the funds disbursed accordingly and deemed the matter terminated, subject to the Ministry of Labour's right to request a hearing within ten days.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the applicant nor her representative attended.

The Board exercised its discretion and dismissed the application orally at the hearing.

Later that same day, the applicant's counsel requested an adjournment, citing an inadvertent oversight due to being on vacation.

The Board confirmed its oral dismissal, noting the adjournment request was received too late and that the reasons provided would likely have been insufficient to grant an adjournment without the responding party's consent.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the responding union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions on why the application should not be dismissed, the Board directed the matter to the Registrar to schedule a consultation hearing where all preliminary issues raised by the responding party could be argued.

The responding party applied to have the application dismissed without a hearing, alleging it did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to dismiss the application without a hearing, leaving the issue to the panel hearing the matter.

The applicant union sought production of a contract referred to during the examination-in-chief of a witness.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the responding party to produce the document to the applicant's counsel, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The responding party was permitted to obscure financial, proprietary, and sensitive business information not related to the witness's evidence, and the applicant's counsel was prohibited from copying or sharing the document with anyone, including the applicant union itself.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union two years after a settlement was reached regarding his termination.

The applicant had cashed the $8,000 settlement cheque but later claimed he did not authorize the settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's reasons for the two-year delay were unsatisfactory and that the prejudice to the union and employer outweighed his reasons for continuing.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging the union failed to file a grievance regarding his entitlement to a severance package following a plant closure.

The union raised preliminary objections that the application was premature because the applicant had never been terminated, and that it should be dismissed for delay as it was filed 18 months after the plant closure.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions explaining why the application should not be dismissed for delay or prematurity.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to take his termination grievance to arbitration.

The applicant was terminated for chronic attendance issues after being placed on a modified work program following a workplace injury.

The union processed the grievance, obtained a legal opinion indicating reinstatement was unlikely, and held a special membership meeting where the members voted not to proceed to arbitration.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union put its mind to the merits of the grievance, sought legal advice, and made a reasonable decision without acting arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.