Employment and Labour Law

The applicants sought to withdraw their application against the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 1287.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application against the responding parties.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties dated December 20, 2000, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the matter.

The employer applied for reconsideration of a Board decision declaring two entities to be a single employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employer argued that the non-construction employer amendments prohibited such a declaration and that the Board improperly exercised its discretion.

The Board dismissed these grounds, finding the amendments did not preclude a related employer declaration and that the union's bargaining rights were eroded when the employer expanded its construction activities.

However, the Board accepted a new argument that the union was required to register as a supplier under the Gaming Control Act to represent employees at gaming premises.

The Board deferred issuing the related employer declarations until the union obtained the requisite registration.

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 Board found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate.

A certificate was ordered to issue to the applicant.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

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

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to obtain a representation vote.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and proposed a different bargaining unit, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and that ballots of disputed part-time employees be segregated.

Board Member J.A. Rundle dissented, arguing that the ballot box should be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act because the employer disagreed with the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the unit.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay termination pay to a former employee.

The employer argued the employee was temporarily laid off and failed to return upon recall.

The Board found that because the employer indicated the recall date was 'unknown' on the Record of Employment, the layoff became an indefinite layoff under the Employment Standards Act.

The employee was therefore entitled to treat the layoff as a termination.

The Order to Pay was affirmed.

Following representation votes under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, CUPE filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that SEIU breached a campaign protocol by engaging in excessive campaigning on the day of the vote.

SEIU brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint without a hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the complaint, finding that even if the allegations were true, excessive campaigning does not in itself prevent voters from exercising their free choice in a secret ballot vote.

The Board appointed SEIU as the bargaining agent for the service and office/clerical bargaining units, as it had received a majority of the ballots cast.

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 trade union by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration, finding that the applicant had acquired the predecessor's rights, privileges, and duties.

The applicant, Teamsters Local Union 938, sought to withdraw its application against Carquest Canada Ltd. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The employer filed a section 8.1 notice disagreeing with the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the bargaining unit and argued the individuals were independent contractors.

The Board found that regardless of the number used, the union had the requisite forty percent membership support.

The Board ordered a representation vote and directed that any ballots cast by disputed individuals be segregated.

The Board declined to seal the ballot box.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer and the employee subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to the disbursement of funds held in trust by the Director.

The Board ordered the funds disbursed in accordance with the settlement and terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.

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

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

An intervenor union alleged it had a subsisting voluntary collective agreement covering the unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, noting that the validity of the intervenor's collective agreement would be treated as an issue under section 66 of the Act.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent 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 issued a certificate to the applicant union.

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

The Board found that the union appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote.

Although the employer filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act disputing the union's estimate of the bargaining unit size, the Board declined to seal the ballot box, finding the 40% threshold was met regardless of which estimate was used.

A dissenting Board member would have sealed the ballot box pending resolution of the section 8.1 issues.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on further applications for certification by the applicant for this bargaining unit was imposed.

The Service Employees' International Union and the Niagara Health System filed applications under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 regarding bargaining rights following hospital restructuring.

To facilitate an economical and expeditious resolution, the Ontario Labour Relations Board appointed a Board Officer to meet with the parties and attempt to resolve the matters in dispute.

The Officer was directed to report the status of settlement efforts to the Board by a specified date.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at Jason House in Hamilton.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

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 union by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and issued the requested declaration.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees of the responding party municipality.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent 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 directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The previously scheduled meeting and hearing dates were cancelled.