OLRB 2000

The applicant union filed a certification application for a bargaining unit in Grimsby, but the employer's operations were actually in Concord.

The employer invoked section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application without prejudice to the union's right to re-file for the proper unit.

The dissenting Vice-Chair would have ordered a representation vote using the employer's proposed bargaining unit, noting that the clerical error did not prejudice either party.

The applicant and the responding employer failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

The Ministry of Labour was represented.

Without any indication as to why the applicant and employer failed to appear, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit was imposed.

The applicant, a union member, filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to file a grievance over his layoff.

The applicant claimed he was improperly laid off while another worker was retained.

The Board found that the union investigated the complaint and reasonably concluded that the layoff was conducted in accordance with the collective agreement's 'last in, first out' practice.

The application was dismissed as there was no evidence of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union.

The Board reconsidered its previous decision ordering a representation vote with a sealed ballot box.

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, disputing the applicant's estimate of employees in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board found the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant established sufficient membership support.

The Board directed that the ballot box not be sealed, except for previously segregated ballots.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the scheduled hearing dates for two files on the agreement of the parties.

The Board directed the Registrar to list all four related matters together for hearing on May 24, and August 16 and 17, 2000.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the hearing of two matters on consent of the parties.

The hearing was rescheduled to August 16 and 17, 2000.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The intervenor requested that the representation vote be postponed or the ballot box sealed until the Board verified the membership evidence.

Relying on Weston Bakeries Limited, the Board held that sections 8(2) and 8(3) direct it to consider only the information provided by the applicant at this stage.

The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed and be counted, leaving the intervenor the option to renew its challenge following the vote.

The applicant employer sought a review of an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the funds held in trust to be paid to the responding party employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant employer sought a review of an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing, but the applicant failed to appear.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the Director of Employment Standards to disburse the funds held in trust to the responding employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

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

Following a previous decision finding that the responding party violated the Act and ordering a second representation vote, the parties entered into an interim agreement setting out the terms for the second vote.

The Board directed that the second representation vote be held in accordance with the parties' agreement and set out the voting constituency and procedures.

The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that the responding party service providers and the community care access centre constituted a single employer.

The responding parties brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that even if the prerequisites of section 1(4) were met, the Board should not exercise its discretion to grant the declaration.

The Board agreed, finding that the loss of work by the unionized service provider was due to a government-mandated competitive bidding process, not a scheme to defeat bargaining rights.

The Board concluded there was no labour relations mischief to remedy and dismissed the application without a hearing on the merits.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision amending the name of the responding party in a previously issued bargaining unit description and certificate.

The Board directed that a new certificate be issued under the correct name and that the applicant return the deficient certificate.

The applicant employer appealed an Occupational Health and Safety Officer's orders.

At the scheduled hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the applicant or the responding employer.

The Ministry of Labour appeared and requested that the appeal be dismissed due to the applicant's absence.

The Board granted the request and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for February 3, 2000.

With the consent of both responding parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment and referred the matter to the Registrar for rescheduling.

The union applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying additional severance and termination pay to employees displaced by a plant closure.

Prior to a hearing, the parties reached a settlement.

The union subsequently requested leave to withdraw its application for review.

The adjudicator granted the request and terminated the proceeding.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision, seeking an extension of time to pay money into trust with the Director under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board dismissed the request, clarifying that it has no jurisdiction to extend the time for payment into trust.

The Board's jurisdiction is limited to extending the time for filing an appeal, which can only be considered after the required funds have been paid or an acceptable letter of credit provided.

The applicant union filed applications for certification to displace the incumbent union.

The incumbent union and an interested party argued the applications should be dismissed due to late delivery to the employer and inaccuracies in the Certificates of Delivery.

The Board found the applicant acted in good faith and intended to deliver the applications on time, but was thwarted by a clerical error with a facsimile number.

The Board exercised its discretion under Rule 44 to relieve against the strict application of the Rules, accepted the application date as March 14, 2000, and directed the opening of the ballot boxes.

The applicant sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for unpaid wages and termination pay.

The Board found that the Order should have been made against the corporate employer, not the individual applicant personally.

The Board further held that no termination pay was owed because the employment contracts were frustrated when a third party unilaterally took possession of the gas bar where the claimants worked.

The corporate employer agreed it owed the claimants for unpaid wages.

Given the applicant's substantial success and lack of prior notice of the claim, the Board ordered the return of the administration fee.

The applicant union sought certification as the bargaining agent for the employees of the responding party.

Following a second representation vote directed by the Board, not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for certification and imposed a one-year bar on further applications by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.