Employment and Labour Law

The applicants filed an application against the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local Sub-Unit 1146.

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board noted that if neither party requests to proceed within that time, the application will be deemed terminated.

Following a representation vote, the Board sought submissions on its legal effect.

The applicant union asserted no reason to alter current collective bargaining relationships until January 1, 2001, but offered no suggestions for after that date.

The responding party employer made no submissions.

The Board terminated the matter.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, withdrew the application with leave, cancelled the scheduled hearing date, and cancelled the arrest warrant previously issued for Danny Bonotto.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant employer filed an appeal under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board previously directed the applicant to provide proof that the required payment had been made in trust to the Director of Employment Standards.

The applicant paid $1,530.49, but the Order to Pay was for $5,451.20.

The applicant claimed deductions for statutory remittances and a set-off for computer equipment.

The Board held that there is no right to set-off against amounts to be paid pursuant to an Order to Pay.

As the applicant failed to make the necessary payment, the appeal was terminated.

The Board determined the placement of the storesperson classification in the service bargaining unit rather than the office/clerical unit, noting the significant physical component of the job duties.

The Board also clarified its previous decision regarding the paramedical bargaining unit, confirming that there will be only one collective agreement for the unit and that while the union may establish multiple locals internally, the employer is only obligated to recognize and negotiate with the single appointed bargaining agent.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor, Service Employees International Union, Local 478, by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration.

The applicant filed an employment standards complaint directly with the Ontario Labour Relations Board against her employer, A&W Restaurants.

The Board found that the complaint had never been brought to the Ministry of Labour and no Employment Standards Officer had issued or refused to issue an order.

As there was no decision to appeal, the Board determined it had no jurisdiction to consider the matter and terminated the application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to make required remittances to benefit funds.

The employer failed to file a response within the required time.

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

The Board found the employer bound by the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $25,334.24 in outstanding remittances and $214.00 in costs.

The applicant, J.H Keeson & Sons Ltd., sought to withdraw its application.

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

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and determined that the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate for collective bargaining.

Finding that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The Board denied the responding party's request to postpone the vote due to employee absences.

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 statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

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

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support (not less than 40%) in the proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

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

The intervenor requested that the Board consolidate the proceeding with a related termination application and dismiss the certification application without a representation vote.

The Board declined to defer the representation vote pending the resolution of those issues, finding it appropriate to direct a vote and determine any outstanding issues at a subsequent hearing if necessary.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a memorandum of agreement.

The Board issued declarations and directions on consent, finding that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement and had violated it.

The responding party was ordered to pay $6,200 in damages as full and final settlement.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote and the counting of additional ballots, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

The application for certification was dismissed, and a one-year bar on further applications by the applicant was imposed.

The applicant, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local 47, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Ontario Sheet Metal and Air Handling Group.

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

The Ministry of the Solicitor General & Correctional Services requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearings due to the medical leave of its counsel.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union consented to the adjournment, noting that the matter had been previously discussed with all parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment, cancelling the hearing dates in January and February 2000, and ordered that the hearings continue on the previously scheduled dates in June.

The applicant union sought a declaration that the responding parties Beldin and Alverio were bound by the collective agreements between the union and Concept, either as a result of a sale of a business or because they were related employers under common control and direction.

The Board found that the departure of two key individuals from Concept to start their own businesses did not constitute a sale of a business, as Concept continued to operate successfully without them and they did not take Concept's work or customers.

The Board also declined to make a single employer declaration, finding that Concept and the new businesses were not under common control and direction, and the union's bargaining rights with Concept remained intact.

The application was dismissed.