Ontario Labour Relations Board

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

The responding party asserted it had no employees in the bargaining unit and purported to give notice under section 8.1, while also claiming to be a non-construction employer.

The Board held that section 8.1 does not apply when an employer asserts it has zero employees, and therefore declined to seal the ballot box.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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

Based on the application and membership evidence, the Board found that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board cancelled a representation vote scheduled for January 3, in view of the results of a representation vote held on December 20, 2001.

The Board noted it would advise the parties regarding future hearing dates and the issues to be determined.

The applicant brought an application against the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Ministry of Labour.

On consent of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant employer sought to suspend an Inspector's orders under the Occupational Health and Safety Act pending an appeal.

The orders required the employer to develop a health and safety program including a policy on workplace violence and to train staff.

The Ministry of Labour and the union did not oppose the suspension request.

The Board granted the suspension, finding that the employer already had an established health and safety program, the balance of harm favoured the employer, and there was a significant likelihood of success on appeal.

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

The responding employer failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend within the required time.

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

The Board declared that the employer was bound by the collective agreement and had violated its monetary provisions.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing to assess damages.

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

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

Based on the application material, the Board found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

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

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 Board deemed the facts in the application to be true and found the responding party liable for violating the collective agreement by failing to pay appropriate wages and remit contributions.

A hearing was scheduled to assess damages.

The applicant union sought to have its application for certification dismissed under section 8.1(5) of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that its membership evidence represented less than 40% of the agreed bargaining unit.

The Board rejected this submission, finding that the employer had abandoned its section 8.1 notice by agreeing in the Minutes of Settlement that the applicant was entitled to a second representation vote.

The Board directed that the ballots from the first representation vote be counted, unless the applicant chose to withdraw the application beforehand.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural direction requesting that the intervenor file an intervention responding to the application prior to the scheduled consultation on January 3, 2002.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief procedural decision directing that any response to the application must be filed by January 5, 2002.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that withdrew his application pursuant to Minutes of Settlement.

The applicant claimed he did not understand the settlement and felt pressured into signing it.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the settlement explicitly confirmed the applicant had obtained independent legal advice and there was no evidence of duress.

Five applicants filed applications under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding trade union violated section 74 of the Act.

The Board found that the applications involved the same subject matter and ordered that they be heard together, referring the files to the Registrar.

In a union certification application, a representation vote was held and the ballots were segregated pending a determination of whether the individuals in dispute were employees or independent contractors.

The responding party requested that the applicant union produce the individuals' income tax returns and other financial documents.

The Board declined to order pre-hearing production, accepting that the documents were not in the union's possession or control, but noted the union's responsibility to secure the attendance of the individuals at the hearing and suggested they be summoned to bring the relevant documents.

Following a previous decision, the employer's counsel advised the Board that cheques had been forwarded to the applicant's counsel for the outstanding amount.

The Board concluded that, subject to any party advising that issues remained outstanding, there was no need for a formal Order to Pay to issue.

The responding party, Urtech Electric Inc., requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing and an extension of time to file a response, alleging it had not received the application materials until recently.

The applicant opposed the requests.

The Board dismissed the request for an adjournment and extension of time at this stage, noting significant factual disputes regarding the delivery of the documents.

The Board directed that the matters proceed as scheduled, leaving the preliminary issues, including the adjournment request, to be addressed by the panel assigned to hear the matter.

In an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that the issue of whether the IAAF Local 529 is a proper intervenor will be dealt with at the hearing of the matter.

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

The Registrar returned the application for failing to comply with the Board's Rules and gave the applicant 10 days to re-file correctly.

The applicant failed to respond or correct the deficiencies.

The application was dismissed pursuant to Rule 29.

The parties agreed to adjourn the proceedings sine die on a without prejudice basis, conditional upon the responding party filing a response by a specified date.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment, cancelling the scheduled hearing dates and directing that the matters would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within one year.

The applicant sought to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board pursuant to Minutes of Settlement concluded between the parties.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.