OLRB 2000

In a series of certification applications where the CAW sought to replace the SEIU as bargaining agent, the Board scheduled a hearing to address the effect of a related civil action and interim court order.

The SEIU requested an adjournment of the hearing because of a further motion it planned to present to the Court.

The Board declined to grant the adjournment in advance, directing that the adjournment request could be addressed by the parties at the scheduled hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process his grievance regarding a surplus/layoff notice to arbitration.

The union had grouped his grievance with others and ultimately withdrew it as part of a larger settlement.

The applicant complained about the union's failure to adequately explain his bumping rights and its failure to communicate the withdrawal of his grievance in a timely manner.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had honestly assessed the merits of the grievance and that the delay in communication, while regrettable, did not amount to arbitrary conduct.

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

At the outset of the hearing, the responding employer requested an adjournment because its principal was too ill to attend.

The applicant and the Ministry of Labour consented to the adjournment.

The Board granted the adjournment and referred the matter to the Registrar for re-scheduling.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervenor requested a postponement of the disposition pending a contempt motion in Superior Court and the resolution of raiding charges by the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board denied the postponement, noting it agreed with other Board decisions dealing with these requests.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots cast in the representation vote were in favour of the applicant, the Board granted certification and ordered a certificate to issue.

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

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

The Board issued a consent order declaring the responding party bound to the Provincial Collective Agreement and finding violations of Articles 4 and 5.

The responding party was ordered to pay $6,500 in damages as full and final settlement.

The applicant employer appealed an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act and paid the required monies into trust.

Pending the appeal, the employer issued a T4 slip to the employee for the trust monies, claiming it was a 'grey area' under the Income Tax Act.

The Board noted that this arrangement prejudiced the employee, who might have to pay tax on monies not yet received, while benefiting the employer.

The Board warned the employer that unless it obtained a written ruling from Revenue Canada clarifying its obligations, if the employee is forced to pay tax on the trust monies before the hearing, the Board would likely deem the issuance of the T4 slip as an admission that the wages are owed and terminate the appeal.

The applicant, a health care aide, was discharged for allegedly leaving work early and having a co-worker swipe her time card.

The union investigated the grievance but ultimately decided not to proceed to arbitration, leading the applicant to file a duty of fair representation complaint under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found that while the union's investigation was deficient in several respects, including a misunderstanding of how the card swipe system worked, these errors amounted to honest mistakes rather than gross negligence.

The Board concluded that the union's decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay for alleged unpaid overtime.

The applicant claimed he worked approximately 70 hours of overtime but provided no reliable records or evidence of employer authorization.

The Board found that even if the applicant's records were accepted, his hours did not exceed the 44-hour weekly threshold required for overtime pay under section 24 of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was dismissed.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine whether Total Communication Environment Inc. (TCE), a community agency providing residential services to developmentally disabled persons, is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

The Board found that TCE is an institution providing observation, care, and treatment to persons suffering from physical or mental illnesses, diseases, or injuries.

Consequently, the Board concluded that TCE is a hospital within the meaning of section 1(1) of the HLDAA and advised the Minister accordingly.

The applicant applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of non-academic employees at the responding party university.

The Board found that the applicant established its status as a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicants filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by failing to pursue their grievances regarding a one-day suspension.

The local union admitted the breach in its response.

The Board dismissed the application against the international union and the joint council on consent.

Given the local union's admission, the Board found a breach of section 74 and ordered the employer and the local union to proceed to step 3 of the grievance procedure.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.

In a previous decision, the adjudicator ordered the responding business to produce contracts to determine the applicant's unpaid commissions.

The applicant alleged the business failed to produce the documents.

The adjudicator directed the matter be re-listed for a hearing where the business must explain the failure to produce or face a potential motion to state a case for contempt to the Superior Court.

The applicant Carpenters union filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint regarding the assignment of work by Ecodyne Limited involving the renovation of a cooling tower, specifically the tear out and scrapping of portions of the frame.

The Labourers union claimed the work was demolition and fell under their jurisdiction based on area practice.

The Board found that the work was an upgrading job in the ICI sector, not demolition, and that employer practice, economy, and efficiency supported the assignment to the Carpenters.

The Board upheld the assignment to the Carpenters.

In an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision, the Ministry of Labour requested the Board to order the applicant to produce particulars of his application in advance of the hearing.

The Board denied the request, finding that it lacks the statutory authority under the Employment Standards Act to make such a pre-hearing order, unlike its powers under the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board strongly encouraged the applicant to provide the particulars voluntarily, warning that failure to do so could result in delays or dismissal of his application at the hearing.

The applicant hospital and responding union reached an agreement on the description and composition of a bargaining unit for office and clerical employees.

Pursuant to sections 21, 22, and 23 of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that a representation vote be held to determine if the employees wish to be represented by the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 4000.

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

The Board previously directed the applicant to file submissions containing the material facts relied upon, warning that failure to comply could result in dismissal.

The applicant failed to file any submissions within the set time frame.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for failure to comply with its directions.

The applicant union sought certification and its status as a trade union was raised as an issue.

Minto Communities (Toronto) Inc. requested intervenor status to make submissions on the applicant's trade union status, arguing it had an interest because the applicant had filed a separate certification application regarding Minto's employees.

The Board denied Minto intervenor status, finding that any determination in this file would not be binding on the panel seized with the Minto application, and the applicant undertook not to rely on any decision in this file as prima facie proof in the Minto application.

The applicant sought to amend its application to add Kawartha Quality Care, ParaMed Health Services, and Bayshore Healthcare as responding parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, noting that while it was late in the process, refusing the amendment would likely lead to parallel proceedings and a waste of resources since no hearing on the merits had commenced.

The Board set timelines for the new responding parties to file responses and make submissions on an existing 'no prima facie case' motion.

The Board convened a telephone conference to hear a request to adjourn a hearing scheduled for February 21, 2000.

After considering the parties' submissions, the Board granted the adjournment and rescheduled the hearing for March 3, 2000.

The applicant union filed an application for certification in the construction industry.

The intervenor union asserted the application should be dismissed due to problematic membership evidence and an existing collective agreement.

The applicant accepted the validity of the collective agreement and requested the application be treated as a timely displacement application.

The Board agreed, amended the bargaining unit description to mirror the existing collective agreement, and directed a representation vote.