Employment and Labour Law

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party municipality.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency, with a direction to segregate the ballot of any individual holding the disputed position of water/sewage superintendent.

The appellant school board applied under section 61(7) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act to suspend an inspector's order requiring it to establish a joint health and safety committee at a specific school, pending an appeal.

The appellant argued that it had a multi-site committee structure pending Ministerial approval following an amalgamation.

The Board found that while suspending the order would not likely jeopardize worker safety and the appellant would suffer prejudice, the appellant failed to establish a strong prima facie case for success on appeal because it had not yet received the required Ministerial approval for a multi-site committee under section 9(3.1).

The application for suspension was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74.

The applicant, a probationary employee, was discharged and claimed the union should have helped him.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the applicant failed to make out an arguable case.

The application did not allege any arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, nor did it indicate that the union was ever asked to assist the applicant.

The applicant requested leave to amend its application to add an additional responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the applicant to provide proper notice to the proposed additional party and to provide the Board with a current address.

The Board deferred submissions on the request to the outset of the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging the union refused to grieve the denial of his prescription benefit claim.

The union and employer requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case, arguing the claim arose during a strike when benefits were not covered.

The Board declined to dismiss the application at this stage due to conflicts in the pleadings, but warned the applicant that if the union's version of events is proven, the complaint is unlikely to succeed.

A consultation hearing was directed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent 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 Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union proposed a bargaining unit covering Board Areas 22, 23, and 24, but only identified employees working in Board Area 24 on the application date.

The Board held that an appropriate geographic area must be one where employees were employed on the application date.

Consequently, the Board restricted the geographic scope to Board Area 24 and directed a representation vote for the eligible carpenters and apprentices.

The applicant filed an application under section 75 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding union requested that the application be dismissed for failing to plead an arguable case and requested particulars.

The Board directed the applicant to comply with the request for particulars and Rule 26 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The responding party was granted leave to renew its request for dismissal upon receipt of the particulars.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against the responding employers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave for the withdrawal.

During an ongoing hearing under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, the responding employer brought a motion to limit or eliminate further evidence proposed by the applicant union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the upcoming scheduled hearing days to allow the panel to consider and determine the employer's motion before requiring either party to proceed with its case.

The applicant filed an application against the union, with the employer intervening.

The Board directed that the application be scheduled for a consultation, without prejudice to any party's right to raise issues of delay and lack of a prima facie case at that time.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party argued the application was untimely as it was received on July 1, 2000, and requested the ballot box be sealed under section 8.1 of the Act.

The Board found the application timely as it was filed on June 30, 2000, before the expiry of the intervenor's collective agreement.

Relying on previous jurisprudence, the Board declined to seal the ballot box and directed a representation vote for the proposed bargaining unit of carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

The applicant brought a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

As no evidence was called, the Vice-Chair ruled that the panel was not seized of the matter.

The intervenor requested clarification of the Board's previous decision directing it to file a 'timely' request for reconsideration, noting it did not receive the decision until May 8, 2000.

The Board clarified that the time for making the request runs from either May 8 or May 11, 2000, as agreed at the hearing.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding employer failed to pay correct wages and benefits.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the responding party was deemed to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the employer violated the collective agreement and ordered payment of $9,763.50 in unpaid wages and benefits, plus $214.00 for the filing fee.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be taken.

The applicant requested to withdraw its referral of a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the request and the referral was withdrawn.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with segregated ballots for technical staff whose inclusion in the unit may be disputed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on subsequent certification applications by the union was imposed.

The applicants, Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75 and Hotel Restaurant and Hospitality Service Employees Union, Local 442, sought to withdraw their application against the responding parties.

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