OLRB 2000

The applicant employee sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay.

The employer failed to attend the hearing.

Based on the employee's uncontested evidence that she was not paid her base salary of $2,000 per month for two months of work, the Board found she was owed $4,000 in wages, less $35 already paid.

The Board substituted its finding for the Officer's and ordered the employer to pay $3,965 plus interest.

The responding party requested a one-week extension to file its response to a union certification application, citing uncertainty about the number of employees at one of the sites.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, finding no clear and compelling reasons to grant the extension.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision dismissing his unfair labour practice complaint against the union for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant argued he was not alerted to the possibility of dismissal and did not have an opportunity to respond.

The Board found the applicant was served with the union's request for dismissal and that submissions are not required to determine if a prima facie case exists.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, relating to events from 1993 to 1995.

The responding union requested the application be dismissed due to undue delay.

The Board directed the parties to file written submissions on the issue of delay and prejudice before determining whether to dismiss the application.

The Board clarified that a previously granted extension of time for filing a response also applies to interventions.

The Board also addressed correspondence from the applicant indicating an intent to file further particulars and add additional parties to his section 74 duty of fair representation complaint.

The Board expressed skepticism about the need for additional parties beyond the union and the employer, but deferred the matter until the new particulars are filed, reminding the applicant of the Rules of Procedure regarding delivery of documents.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant had been off work with a disability since 1989 and was terminated in 1996.

The union intervened and negotiated an agreement to delay termination while the applicant's eligibility for a disability pension was assessed.

After medical examinations by both the employer's and the applicant's doctors concluded she was not totally disabled from any occupation, she was denied the pension and terminated.

The Board found no basis to conclude the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, and dismissed the application without a consultation.

The applicant brought an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a breach of section 74 by the responding union and employer.

The Board dismissed the application on the basis that the responding parties are governed exclusively by federal jurisdiction, depriving the provincial Board of jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The applicants, former employees of a Loeb grocery store, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following the acquisition of the store by A&P, the union consented to the store reopening as a Food Basics outlet under an existing collective agreement with inferior wages and no transfer of seniority.

The Board dismissed the application at the consultation stage, finding that the union's decision was reasonable given that the alternative was the permanent closure of the store and the loss of all employment opportunities for the bargaining unit members.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and cancelled any previously set meeting and hearing dates.

The responding party was directed to post copies of the decision.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding party employer and the intervenor union asserted that the application was untimely because a conciliation officer had been appointed for the existing bargaining units and no 'No Board' report had been issued.

The Board noted that the application appeared untimely under section 67(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and directed the applicant to file written submissions showing why the application should not be dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding unpaid vacation pay and trust fund contributions.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement and requested a consent order.

The Board issued declarations that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement and had violated it by failing to make appropriate remittances.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $5,790.95 in damages as agreed in the settlement.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The union filed a response and requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case under Rule 46 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board found that the application contained sufficient detail to arguably make out a case, but expressed concern regarding the union's allegations that the applicant sought to undo a settlement only after his alternate employment provided inadequate income.

The Board directed the applicant to file a statement responding to the union's factual allegations before scheduling a consultation.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a previous Board decision that had dismissed his application due to delay.

The applicant argued against the Board's practice of having the same Vice-Chair review the reconsideration request, citing another case.

The Board clarified that the cited case did not demonstrate a contrary practice and found no new information or reasons to reconsider its previous decisions.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

The parties reached a settlement wherein the applicant assumed the exclusive bargaining rights of the responding union with respect to the respondent employer's employees, and the seniority lists were merged.

The Board issued orders to give effect to the Minutes of Settlement and the application was withdrawn with leave.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74.

The union and the intervenor employer sought to have the application dismissed on preliminary grounds of undue delay and failure to make out a prima facie case.

The Board declined to dismiss the application on preliminary grounds without a consultation or hearing, noting allegations of undertakings made by union representatives.

The matter was referred to the Registrar.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding union.

The Board extended the time for the responding party and affected parties to file a response or intervention to September 19, 2000, noting no serious prejudice to the applicant.

The Board also deleted several employers from the style of cause as affected parties, as the applicant indicated it no longer sought any remedy against them.

OPSEU and individual former Crown employees filed applications alleging that the responding municipalities violated O. Reg. 10/99 by failing to properly credit their seniority after they were transferred to municipal employment.

The intervenor union (CUPE) and the responding municipalities raised preliminary objections regarding the Board's jurisdiction and the applicants' standing.

The Board held that it lacked inherent jurisdiction to enforce the regulation directly, as the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act does not provide a mechanism for individual employees or their former bargaining agent to apply to the Board for such redress.

The applications were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The employer sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for unpaid overtime and public holiday pay.

The employer argued the employee was exempt as a 'taxi cab driver' because he drove vans to transport passengers to the airport.

The Board held that an employee is only employed as a taxi cab driver if they spend the majority of their work hours in a week driving a vehicle with seating for not more than nine persons.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be rescheduled for hearing to apply this test.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the union and the employer violated section 74 of the Act.

The Board dismissed the application against the employer because section 74 does not apply to employers.

The Board also dismissed the application against the union, finding that the applicant failed to plead sufficient material facts to establish a prima facie case of a breach of the duty of fair representation.

Furthermore, allegations regarding a specific grievance were dismissed as premature because the grievance procedure had not yet been exhausted.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's determination that he was not entitled to termination pay.

The employer claimed the applicant quit after an altercation, while the applicant claimed he was fired and asked to return his key.

The Board found that the employer's actions, including asking for the key and calling the police, constituted a termination.

The applicant was awarded six weeks' pay in lieu of notice plus vacation pay.