OLRB 2000

The moving party requested an extension of time to file a request for reconsideration of an earlier Board decision, citing counsel's inability to meet with a representative.

The Board denied the request, emphasizing the need for speedy resolution of construction industry grievances under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found the reason provided insufficient to warrant an extension.

The union referred a grievance to arbitration regarding the employer's violation of the union security provisions of the collective agreement by employing non-union members.

In a prior decision, the Board found the employer liable.

In this decision on damages, the Board held that the breach of the collective agreement gave rise to a claim for damages because the union had unemployed members who were ready, willing, and able to perform the work.

The Board rejected the employer's argument that its good faith in attempting to enter into a bona fide subcontract should relieve it from paying damages.

The employer was ordered to pay $18,751.44 to the union.

The responding parties requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates for interim applications due to the unavailability of counsel.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the adjournment, noting that interim applications are scheduled on short notice and availability of counsel is generally not a reason for adjourning a proceeding that has not yet commenced.

The Board directed that the matter proceed on the first scheduled date, but cancelled the second date as interim applications do not involve calling evidence and should take less than a day to argue.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act outside the 45-day statutory time limit.

The Board requested submissions on why the appeal should be considered timely or why an extension should be granted.

The applicant failed to respond.

The Board dismissed the application as untimely.

The union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer padded the voters list with non-employees to defeat the certification application.

The employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the unfair labour practice complaint for failing to establish a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the motion regarding the alleged breach of section 70, finding the pleadings raised a factual concern about the employer's motive.

However, the Board dismissed the allegations under sections 72 and 76 on a prima facie basis, as the pleadings did not demonstrate discrimination, threats, or intimidation.

The applicant employer filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

After waiting the normal thirty minutes, the Board dismissed the application for review.

The Board affirmed the Order to Pay and directed that the monies held in trust be distributed to the responding employee.

The union requested an order compelling the employer to produce business and financial records in the context of unfair labour practice applications alleging a breach of the duty to bargain in good faith.

The employer resisted, arguing it had already produced an unaudited financial statement.

The Board granted the union's request, finding the documents arguably relevant to the union's allegation that the employer falsely claimed an inability to afford the union's demands, and relevant to the employer's own application relying on financial summaries.

The employer was ordered to produce the documents within 30 days, subject to an implied undertaking not to use them for collateral purposes.

The applicant employers sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay a former employee for unpaid overtime and one week's pay in lieu of notice of termination.

The Board found that the employee was not entitled to termination pay because she wilfully neglected to work during her final week after receiving notice of layoff.

However, the Board upheld the order for overtime pay, finding that the employee worked extended hours to complete her duties and the employer, who was aware of this and derived a benefit, took no reasonable steps to prevent her from doing so.

The order to pay was amended accordingly.

A rival union applied for reconsideration of a default decision issued by the Board in a grievance arbitration between the incumbent union and the employer.

The rival union sought intervenor status on the basis that it represented employees in the bargaining unit and had filed a displacement application.

The Board held that the rival union lacked status to intervene, as representing employees does not grant status in a grievance unless specific adverse effects on individual employees are pleaded.

However, noting that the default decision could create res judicata issues affecting the ongoing displacement application, the Board reconsidered and revoked its prior decision to avoid inconsistent findings.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for eight weeks' termination pay.

The applicant alleged constructive dismissal after returning from a layoff, claiming his hours were substantially reduced and overtime installation work was eliminated.

The employer argued the applicant quit or, alternatively, refused reasonable alternate work consisting solely of service duties.

The Board found that the reduction in hours and elimination of overtime constituted a substantial change to the terms of employment.

Furthermore, the Board held that the offer of only available service work, which significantly reduced his regular hours and eliminated overtime opportunities, did not constitute reasonable alternate work.

The application was allowed, and the employer was ordered to pay eight weeks' pay in lieu of notice.

The applicant, a probationary employee, filed a complaint alleging that his employment was terminated in reprisal for raising health and safety concerns regarding a falling ratchet gun, contrary to section 50(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer maintained that the applicant was terminated for submitting a fraudulent property claim for damaged work boots.

The Board found that the decision to terminate was made independently by labour relations personnel who had no knowledge of the applicant's safety concerns, and was based on an honestly held belief that the property claim was fraudulent.

Finding no anti-safety animus, the Board dismissed the complaint and declined to substitute a lesser penalty under section 50(7).

The applicant union sought compliance with a pre-hearing order for document production in a related employer and sale of business application.

The responding parties claimed they had provided documents for review and no copies were required, while the applicant asserted it had only seen a portion and needed copies.

The Board reaffirmed its prior order, directing the responding parties to produce and file the specified documents with the Board by March 15, 2000, failing which a hearing would be held to consider contempt proceedings.

The applicant requested document production from the responding parties.

The Board directed both responding parties to produce the documents in their possession to the applicant's counsel by June 1, 2000, with leave for the applicant to renew its request for further documents by June 12, 2000.

The responding party applied for reconsideration of the Board's decision granting the applicant an adjournment.

The responding party argued the Board made inappropriate assumptions about when the applicant learned her former representative could not represent her.

The Board found its original assumptions were not inappropriate and denied the request for reconsideration.

The applicant union sought reconsideration of a previous Board decision.

After reviewing the filed documents, the Board granted the reconsideration and declared that the three responding corporate entities constitute one employer for all purposes under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a decision partially allowing the applicant's review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay, the applicant requested the return of funds allegedly paid in trust for another employee.

The Board denied the request, noting that no evidence or submissions regarding the other employee were presented at the hearing, the applicant's materials made no reference to him, and there appeared to be no further funds available to disburse in the file.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer, which awarded the claimant termination pay and overtime pay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rescinded the Order to Pay.

The Board found that the claimant, who installed furnaces and fireplaces, was employed in the construction industry and was therefore exempt from the termination pay provisions of the Employment Standards Act.

Furthermore, the Board accepted the employer's evidence that the additional hours paid to the claimant were an advance for future work, not overtime hours worked.

The applicant failed to respond to a previous Board direction requiring him to notify the Board whether he wished to proceed with his application.

As a result, the Board terminated the application.

The applicant employer filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The application appeared to be untimely, having been filed more than four years after the Order to Pay was issued.

The employer provided correspondence indicating previous requests to stay the proceeding or extend the time for filing.

The Board directed the parties to make submissions on whether the Board or the Director of Employment Standards has jurisdiction to extend the time for filing the application in these circumstances.

The applicant union brought an application alleging a sale of a business from North West Timber Limited to Black River Logging Inc. under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding parties failed to attend the hearing.

The union presented evidence that the new company operated at the same site, with the same employees, doing the same work, and shared the same president.

The Board drew a negative inference from the responding parties' failure to attend and found that a sale of a business had occurred.

The Board declared the new company bound by the existing collective agreement.