OLRB 2000

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union regarding her employment as a marine porter on Great Lakes freighters.

The Board requested written submissions on its jurisdiction to hear the matter.

Finding that navigation and shipping fall within exclusive federal jurisdiction under the Canada Labour Code, and noting the applicant failed to provide facts demonstrating an exception, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding employer and intervenor union argued the application was untimely due to an existing collective agreement.

The applicant contended there was no signed collective agreement and the ratified agreement differed from the one agreed upon.

The Board deferred holding a representation vote until the timeliness of the application could be determined, balancing the applicant's arguments against the interests of the incumbent union and employer.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to set hearing dates.

The parties entered into minutes of settlement regarding a grievance referral and an unfair labour practice application.

The settlement required the employer to pay $7,500 in damages to the union in installments.

It also required the union to accept two employees into membership upon payment of specified initiation fees and first month's dues.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement.

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

The responding party argued that the workers were independent contractors, an issue the Board deferred until after the representation vote.

Finding that the union appeared to have the requisite membership support, the Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be held.

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

The applicant and one of the responding employees, Carlos Altedill, resolved their dispute via Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the Director of Employment Standards to release $900 plus accrued interest to Mr. Altedill from the funds held in trust.

The application regarding the other employee, Carlos Medeiros, remains unresolved and will proceed to a hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

A representation vote was held and the applicant was successful.

The intervenor union alleged it had bargaining rights through a voluntary recognition agreement executed six days prior to the application.

The Board directed the parties to file written submissions regarding the validity of the intervenor's voluntary recognition agreement, noting the issue may be resolved without an oral hearing.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The Ministry of Labour and the responding employee moved to dismiss the application.

The Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear and discharge its onus of proof.

A subsequent letter from the applicant citing weather conditions was received after the dismissal and declined by the Board.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, challenging the responding employer's assignment of removing and replacing loose concrete blocks over boilers at a nuclear power plant to the responding union (Boilermakers).

The applicant claimed the work should have been assigned to its members, while an intervenor union argued for a composite crew.

After reviewing the employer's past practice evidence, the Board declined to change the assignment and confirmed the work was properly assigned to the Boilermakers.

The IBEW filed applications alleging unfair labour practices, seeking a sale of business and related employer declaration, and referring a grievance to arbitration against GDC, GFP, Wabi, and Unicorn.

The Board found that Minutes of Settlement previously entered into by GDC created a binding obligation to sign the IBEW Principal Agreement, allowing the section 96(7) complaint.

However, the Board dismissed the remaining applications, finding that GDC's decision to cease operating as a general contractor was due to financial difficulties, not anti-union animus.

The Board also found no sale of a business to the other entities and declined to make a related employer declaration, as there was no common control and it would inappropriately extend bargaining rights.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application against the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 4156 and the District School Board of Niagara.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the matter was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union filed an application for a related employer and sale of business declaration, as well as a grievance referral, against the responding employers.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued a consent order declaring that a sale of business occurred and that the employers constitute a single employer bound by the collective agreement.

The employers were ordered to pay $30,000 in damages for violating the agreement by using non-union personnel to perform bargaining unit work.

The applicant requested an amendment to a previous Board decision that incorrectly recorded a settlement amount.

The minutes of settlement stated the responding party was to pay $1,000.00, but the decision incorrectly showed $3,000.00.

The Board amended the decision to reflect the correct amount of $1,000.00.

The applicant employee appealed the refusal of an Employment Standards Officer to issue an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The responding employer agreed to pay the applicant $2,154 as severance pay and provide a letter of reference.

The Board issued orders on consent reflecting the settlement and terminated the proceedings.

The Board previously directed the applicant, Mr. Bailey, to advise whether he intended to proceed with the matter by May 16, 2000, failing which the application would be terminated.

As Mr. Bailey did not respond, the Board terminated the application.

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, 1995.

The union requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case, or alternatively, that the applicant provide particulars.

The Board directed the applicant to provide detailed submissions responding to the union's request to dismiss and to provide the requested particulars before determining whether to dismiss the application or refer it for a consultation.

The applicant appealed an Order to Pay issued against her as a director of a restaurant business under the Employment Standards Act.

She argued that she was an inactive director and had been told she would have no responsibilities.

The adjudicator dismissed the appeal, holding that director liability under the Employment Standards Act is strict liability and there is no legal basis to relieve against it.

The applicant employee sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order for termination pay, alleging she was constructively dismissed after being intentionally pushed by the employer's owner, who was also her father.

The Board found that while the physical contact was not inadvertent, there was no intention to push or harm the applicant.

The owner had reached out to cause the applicant to look up during a heated dispute, causing her to fall backwards without injury.

The Board concluded this contact did not amount to a constructive dismissal and dismissed the application.

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

A representation vote was scheduled but cancelled after the responding union requested its name be removed from the ballot.

The Board issued a notice of intent to declare the applicant as the bargaining agent for the specified unit, subject to any objections filed by the parties by a specified date.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party employer failed to remit benefits, dues, contributions, and deductions.

The responding party failed to attend the hearing.

Based on the union's evidence, the Board found the employer bound by the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $4,115.32 in arrears plus $749.00 in fees.

In an application for termination of bargaining rights, the intervenor employer requested the Board dismiss the responding union's allegations under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board declined to dismiss the allegations on a preliminary basis, finding that the union was entitled to file further particulars of its original allegations.

The temporal scope of the evidence to be called was left to be determined by the panel hearing the application on the merits.