OLRB 2000

The employee applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay outstanding wages, vacation pay, and statutory holiday pay.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Ministry agreed with the employee's claim that the employer failed to remit statutory deductions as required by the employment contract.

Based on the uncontradicted evidence, the Board found the employee was owed the claimed amount and ordered the employer to pay $3,485.04.

The responding employer applied for reconsideration of a Board decision dismissing a union certification application without imposing a bar.

The employer argued the union's letter constituted a withdrawal and that the union knew it lacked the requisite 40% membership support, warranting a bar on future applications.

The Board found the letter was an acknowledgement of failure, not a withdrawal, and concluded there was no evidence the union cynically submitted invalid cards or knew it lacked sufficient support.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to impose a bar, and the application for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought to have two part-time nursing supervisor positions included in the new nursing bargaining unit represented by the respondent union, with full recognition for their service and seniority under s. 33(3) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The respondent union argued that the bargaining unit configuration had already been settled by a prior Board decision and Minutes of Settlement, and these employees were not included.

The Board agreed with the union, finding that s. 33(3) applies to an 'employee in the bargaining unit,' and it was not appropriate to decide status disputes under this section after the bargaining unit configuration had been decided.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a breach of the union's duty of fair representation under section 74.

The responding trade union and intervenor employer requested that the application be dismissed for failing to establish an arguable case.

The Board directed the applicant to file a detailed written reply addressing the factual statements and specifying the union's alleged breaches, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying their claim.

The Officer denied the claim because it was filed beyond the six-month limitation period and was identical to a previously disposed complaint.

The Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions on the basis for the Board's jurisdiction to proceed with the claim.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board noted that section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 does not apply to applications for certification in the construction industry.

The Board directed the Registrar to list the application for a two-day hearing to resolve outstanding issues, including the identity of the employer, the adequacy of membership evidence, and the employment relationship of disputed individuals.

The responding party was also ordered to disclose relevant documents prior to the hearing.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to provide him with regular employment from the hiring hall.

The Board noted that the allegations pertained to the union's hiring hall list and were more appropriately characterized as a duty of fair referral complaint under section 75.

The Board directed the Registrar to provide the applicant with the necessary forms to amend his application to a section 75 complaint within 15 days, and deferred ruling on the union's request to dismiss the matter on a prima facie basis.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the responding party trade union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, seemingly in relation to a warning letter he received from his employer.

The Board found the application to be incoherent and misconceived, noting that section 74 is a means to complain about a union's conduct, not to challenge an employer's discipline or management.

The Board dismissed the application without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a proper application clearly identifying the union's alleged unlawful conduct.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the responding party violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by contracting out custodial work and snow removal, and discontinuing the employee assistance program.

The union sought an order for the production of several documents.

The Board directed the responding party to produce the documents it does not object to producing, and to file a statement of objections for any documents it refuses to produce.

The applicant filed an application against the Ontario Nurses' Association.

The Board reviewed the submissions and directed the Registrar to schedule the application for a consultation, noting that it was not satisfied on the basis of the applicant's material alone that there was no basis for the relief sought.

The Board directed the applicant to be prepared to address the advice sought and given by the union in late 1997, and to provide written notice of any unpleaded contact with the union between late 1997 and September 1998.

The applicant union requested an order for the production of documents prior to a hearing concerning applications under sections 1(4), 69, 96, and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, noting its power under section 111(2)(b) and the responding parties' duty to disclose relevant information under subsections 1(5) and 69(13).

The Board directed the responding parties to produce the arguably relevant documents by a specified date or advise the Board of any objections.

The applicant employer requested the production of documents from the responding party employee.

The employee submitted that some documents did not exist and requested documents from the employer.

The Board directed the parties to bring all relevant documents, including the employee's income tax returns, to the scheduled hearing.

The panel hearing the matter will determine relevance and production if the parties cannot agree beforehand.

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

Following a previous finding that the responding party employer breached the collective agreement, this hearing was held to assess damages.

The employer failed to attend.

Based on the union's evidence, the Board found the employer owed $29,920.38 for unpaid overtime, unremitted benefit contributions, and unremitted union dues.

The Board also ordered the employer to reimburse the union for the filing fees, resulting in a total order of $30,669.38.

The applicant filed a complaint against the responding party union, with the employer intervening.

Following a consultation, the parties agreed the applicant would consider private mediation/arbitration and advise the Board.

Instead, the applicant sent multiple letters seeking to defer scheduling until another matter was resolved.

The Board adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year and directed the applicant to clarify his legal representation.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed late and the applicant failed to pay the amount of the order in trust to the Director of Employment Standards, as required by the Act.

The Board dismissed the application for failing to comply with the statutory requirements and the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to process his grievances regarding cross-bumping rights following a layoff.

The union moved to dismiss the application for failing to disclose an arguable case and for undue delay.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the applicant failed to identify any substantive provision in the collective agreement supporting his claim and failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the two-year delay in bringing the application.

The applicant union sought reconsideration of a Board decision scheduling a representation vote outside the usual five-day timeline under subsection 8(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The majority of the Board dismissed the request, finding that the delay was a valid exercise of discretion to ensure proper notice to employees, many of whom were not scheduled to work on the days leading up to the vote.

A dissenting Board member argued that the decision was an abrupt departure from the Board's established practice of adhering to the five-day timeframe.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding parties raised two preliminary objections.

First, they sought to strike a paragraph in the application regarding future plans for a permanent long-term care facility, arguing it was premature and lacked material facts.

The Board dismissed this objection, ordering the responding parties to disclose their plans and produce relevant documents, as the information was arguably relevant to the union's case.

Second, the responding hospital objected to the union's allegation that contracting out the work breached section 70 of the Act.

The Board upheld this objection, finding no prima facie case of anti-union animus and concluding the matter was better suited for grievance arbitration.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further applications for certification by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

The Board issued a decision correcting a previous statement that the applicant had not been found to be a trade union.

Noting that the applicant had already proven its status as a trade union in a prior proceeding, the Board relieved the applicant from the obligation to file materials regarding its status.