OLRB 2000

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The application and required payment into trust were received by the Board one day after the 45-day statutory deadline.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the deadline, noting that the applicant had sent the application prior to the expiry of the deadline and provided an explanation for the delay.

The applicant filed a request for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision one day after the 45-day statutory deadline.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for filing, noting that the applicant had mailed the appeal prior to the deadline.

The responding party, Urban Electrical Contractors, requested reconsideration of a Board decision finding a sale of a business from Volta Electrical Contractors Ltd. to Urban and declaring them one employer.

Urban argued the Board erred factually and legally, and that a subsequent certification vote against the union and delay in rendering the decision prejudiced Urban.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request, finding Urban was attempting to re-argue the case, the certification vote was irrelevant to the sale of business application, and any prejudice from delay was due to Urban's unreasonable belief that the representation issue was over.

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

The Board's confirmation materials were returned because they could not be delivered to one of the responding parties at the address provided.

The applicant admitted the address was incorrect, but the certificate of delivery indicated service at that address.

The Board suspended processing the application until the applicant confirms proper service or requests relief from strict compliance with the Rules.

The applicant union filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer violated section 86 by assigning mandatory weekend overtime to public health nurses.

The employer raised a preliminary objection, requesting the Board defer to the arbitration process as a grievance had been filed on the same issue.

The Board directed the parties to provide written submissions on the preliminary issue of deferral to arbitration.

The applicant brought a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Pending discussions between the parties, the Board adjourned the matter sine die.

The Board directed that if no party requests to proceed within one year, the matter will be deemed terminated.

In an application for certification, the responding party employer sought to challenge the status of two employees it had previously agreed were in the bargaining unit, after the representation vote had been held and their ballots counted.

The employer argued they were not apprentices under the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act.

The Board dismissed the request, holding that parties cannot resile from agreements made during the pre-certification process, as doing so would undermine the expedition and finality required in certification applications.

The Board directed a hearing to determine the status of one remaining employee whose ballot had been segregated.

The applicant appealed an Officer's decision not to issue an Order to Pay, alleging she was terminated because she announced her pregnancy and intention to take a leave, contrary to section 44 of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer claimed she was terminated due to financial difficulties and performance issues, but the decision-maker found the employer failed to meet the heavy burden of proving the termination was unrelated to the pregnancy, given the timing of the dismissal just three days after the announcement.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $26,477.23 in damages for loss of wages, loss of reasonable expectation of continued employment, and pain and suffering.

The applicant union brought applications under sections 1(4), 69, and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties requested a hearing day to deal with issues arising from the production of documents.

The Board declined to schedule a hearing for this purpose, noting that scarce hearing time should not be spent on document production disputes.

Instead, the Board directed the parties to exchange written submissions and documents according to a set schedule, after which the Board would make any necessary orders.

The applicant appealed Ministry of Labour orders.

The Ministry subsequently advised the Board that the orders had been rescinded.

The Board noted that there appeared to be no basis to proceed and indicated the application would be terminated unless the responding employees filed written objections within ten days.

The applicant requested pre-hearing production of documents in an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party opposed the request, noting that counsel and the client contact were on vacation and unable to obtain instructions.

Given the short time before the scheduled hearing and the volume of documents requested, the Board declined to order pre-hearing production.

Instead, the Board directed the responding party to produce the documents at the hearing or be prepared to make submissions on why they should not be produced.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision reminding the responding parties that their application for judicial review of previous decisions concerning pre-hearing production does not operate as a stay of those decisions.

The Registrar was directed to set one day of hearing, and the responding parties were reminded of their obligation to adduce all relevant facts.

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

The applicant paid a portion of the order into trust but failed to pay the full amount or explain the shortfall despite a request from the Board.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that under section 68(7) of the Act, it has no discretion to proceed with a review unless the full amount of the order is paid into trust.

The applicant filed submissions asserting it did not employ any members of the responding party in the construction industry on the date of application.

The responding parties challenged the sufficiency of the applicant's pleadings.

The Board directed the applicant to plead any additional material facts it relies upon by August 31, 2000, in accordance with Rule 26 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant employer applied under section 65(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the responding trade union's bargaining rights.

The trade union failed to file a response to the application.

The Board found that the criteria under section 65(2) were established by the undisputed facts and exercised its discretion to terminate the trade union's bargaining rights.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least 40% of the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote.

The employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but the majority found it numerically irrelevant and declined to seal the ballot box.

A dissenting Board member would have sealed the ballot box based on a plain reading of sections 8 and 8.1.

In an application for certification where the BACU sought to displace the IUBAC as the bargaining agent for bricklayers employed by Kvaerner Jaddco, the Board addressed several preliminary issues.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit, permitted the withdrawal of a related grievance, and dismissed allegations regarding the order of names on the ballot and forced membership card signing.

However, the Board found that due to a series of administrative and logistical errors by the Board and the parties, employees did not receive adequate notice of the initial representation vote.

Consequently, the Board ordered a second representation vote to be held.

An employee filed an application for termination of bargaining rights, and the union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging employer interference.

The Board directed a representation vote and sealed the ballot box pending the resolution of the union's allegations.

During the hearing, the parties agreed to count the ballots and the union withdrew its unfair labour practice complaint.

The ballot count revealed that not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the termination application.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the intervenor union requested that the Board postpone issuing a certificate pending the outcome of a contempt motion in Superior Court and internal Canadian Labour Congress proceedings.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no valid reason to delay the final determination and noting that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires the Board to certify the applicant when a majority of votes are in its favour.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

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

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

The Board imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.