OLRB 2000

The applicant union brought a displacement application for certification.

Following a representation vote won by the applicant, the intervenor argued the application should be dismissed or the certificate delayed due to pending court and Canada Labour Congress proceedings.

The Board rejected this argument, consistent with its previous decisions on identical issues between the parties.

Finding that more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The applicant credit union applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act following a merger of two credit unions.

The responding unions argued the application was premature because no intermingling of employees had occurred.

The Board found that it was desirable to resolve the conflict between the bargaining rights caused by the recognition clause in one of the collective agreements.

The Board declared that a sale of business had occurred, no intermingling had taken place, and defined the appropriate bargaining units.

The applicant union requested that its application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 be listed for hearing and consolidated with a similar application brought by another union against the same responding parties.

The responding parties opposed consolidation, noting the presence of an intervenor in one application but not the other.

The Board directed the Registrar to list both applications to be heard together on the previously scheduled dates, leaving the ultimate determination of whether the matters should be formally consolidated to the panel seized with hearing the applications.

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

The responding party claimed it was not a trade union and therefore not subject to the duty of fair representation.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions on this issue.

When the applicant failed to file any submissions by the extended deadline, the Board dismissed the application, finding no prima facie basis to establish that the responding party was a trade union.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and a common/successor employer application against the responding parties.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement.

The Board issued orders and declarations in accordance with the settlement, including a declaration that Labcare is a successor employer in respect of the assumed business, and an order that Labcare pay $675,000 in settlement of all claims and grievances.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union submitted that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the employer, Brinks Canada Limited, is federally regulated and its labour relations fall under the Canada Labour Code.

The Board reviewed a Federal Court of Appeal decision confirming that Brinks' labour relations are federally regulated.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant employer appealed orders issued by a Ministry of Labour inspector under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Prior to the hearing, the employer and the inspector entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving the issues, which included amending a lockout order and rescinding a guarding order on the condition that an engineer's report be provided.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued the Minutes of Settlement as an Order of the Board and the appeal was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union after her termination grievance was settled at mediation-arbitration.

She alleged she did not get a proper hearing and wanted to proceed to a full arbitration.

The union and the employer requested the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union's decision to proceed to mediation-arbitration was not improper and that the applicant had agreed to the settlement.

As there were no allegations of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, the Board dismissed the application.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation requested that the Board order the applicant to provide particulars of her allegations.

The Board found the request appropriate and directed the applicant to provide specific details regarding who was contacted, when, and what responses were received in relation to paragraphs 45 and 62 of her application.

The time limits for the responding parties' responses were extended accordingly.

The applicant employer applied for a review under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer and two employees entered into Minutes of Settlement, which were approved by the Ministry of Labour.

The Board directed the Director in Trust to disburse the settlement funds to the employees and return the remaining amounts, including an administrative fee, to the employer.

The applicant requested clarification of the Board's decision dismissing her request for reconsideration regarding an alleged violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by the responding union.

The Board advised the applicant that the matter is now closed.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

Despite receiving notice, the employer failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the appeal and ordered the wages held in trust to be disbursed to the employee.

The applicant employer brought an application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding the sale of a business.

The parties agreed that a sale of a business had occurred, that the employer was a successor employer, and that there was an intermingling of employees resulting in a conflict between the bargaining rights of two union locals.

On consent, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed a representation vote to determine which of the two union locals would represent the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant employer sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay severance to an employee who was forced to retire at age 65.

The employer argued that mandatory retirement at age 65 was an implied term of the employment contract and did not constitute a 'termination' under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board found that the employee did not voluntarily resign and was unilaterally terminated by the employer.

Because the employee was retired without an unreduced pension benefit, the Board held that the retirement constituted a termination under section 58 of the Act, entitling the employee to severance pay.

The application for review was dismissed.

The applicants requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision dismissing their duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

They sought monetary damages and a fine against the union for alleged misrepresentation and Human Rights Code violations.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the applicants merely reasserted arguments already considered and failed to meet the strict threshold test for reconsideration, which requires new evidence or compelling reasons such as an error of law.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of at least forty percent of the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with voters asked to choose between the applicant and the intervenor.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union approximately 42 months after his termination.

The union and the intervenor employer sought to dismiss the application on the basis of undue delay.

The Board found that while the applicant experienced personal difficulties, he was able to attend school and file a human rights complaint during the delay period.

The Board concluded that the delay was extraordinary and unexplained, and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an extension of the timelines for filing a written statement directed by the Board in a previous decision.

The Board granted the request, extending the deadlines by two weeks.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the responding party's care centre.

The intervenor union requested a postponement of the certificate issuance pending a contempt motion in Superior Court and internal Canadian Labour Congress proceedings.

The Board declined to delay the issuance, noting that previous panels had already rejected similar arguments and that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 mandates certification when more than 50 percent of ballots are cast in favour of the applicant.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at Hanover and District Hospital.

The intervenor union requested a postponement of the certificate issuance pending a contempt motion in Superior Court and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.

The Board declined to delay the issuance, noting that a representation vote had already been held where more than 50 percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

The Board found no valid reason to delay the final determination and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.