OLRB 2000

The applicant sought to review an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay but failed to file the proper application form with the Board.

The applicant also missed the 45-day time limit and did not respond to the Board's directions to request an extension or file the correct form.

The Board concluded no application was actually made, dismissed the matter, and directed the Director to pay out the monies held in trust.

The applicant, a corporate director, appealed an Order to Pay issued against him.

He failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

At the hearing, counsel for the Ministry of Labour advised the Board that the applicant was an undischarged bankrupt, meaning the order was stayed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant union (OPSEU) applied for certification to represent paramedics employed by the Regional Municipality of York.

The Region and the intervenor union (CUPE) argued the application was untimely because the paramedics were already covered by an existing collective agreement or a valid voluntary recognition agreement between them.

The Board found that the agreement to expand the existing CUPE bargaining unit to include the newly hired paramedics constituted a valid voluntary recognition agreement.

Declining to follow earlier Board jurisprudence, the Board held that the union only needed majority support in the overall expanded bargaining unit, not the specific add-on group.

As CUPE had majority support in the overall unit, the agreement was valid and barred OPSEU's application.

The applicants, constructors of a building project, appealed multiple orders issued by a Ministry of Labour health and safety inspector under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The orders related to various construction site hazards, including debris, missing guardrails, unsecured ladders, and inadequate lighting.

The Board reviewed the evidence, including photographs and testimony, and found that the applicants failed to discharge their burden of proof to overturn the inspector's orders.

The Board affirmed all the contested orders, noting that the regulations are specific and technical to ensure minimum health and safety requirements are met.

The applicant trade union brought to the Board's attention an earlier decision confirming its status.

The Board issued this decision to confirm that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

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

A representation vote was held, and two individuals cast ballots.

The responding party general contractor asserted that it employed no carpenters on the date of application and that the individuals were employed by a subcontractor.

The Board found that the individuals were hired, paid, and governed by the collective agreement of the subcontractor, not the responding party.

As there were no employees in the bargaining unit on the date of application, the application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union, alleging it acted in bad faith by agreeing with the employer to use continuous service (seniority) rather than years of employment with pay to determine eligibility for a $25,000 early retirement incentive.

Because the applicant had a break in service, he did not qualify under the seniority method.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the union's decision to favour one group of employees over another in collective bargaining did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The applicants, former employees and union members, alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union negotiated a collective agreement that granted retroactive pay increases to current employees but not to former members who were not employed at the time of ratification.

The Board found that retroactivity is a matter of negotiation and that the union's decision to favour current employees over former ones was not inherently unlawful.

The Board concluded that the application did not establish a prima facie case of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct and dismissed the complaint without a hearing.

The applicant trade union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a representation vote where ballots were segregated, the Board directed the Registrar to schedule a one-day hearing to address preliminary matters, including the applicant's trade union status and the intervenor's status.

The Board also ordered the applicant to file particulars regarding its assertion that the responding parties should be declared a single employer under subsection 1(4) of the Act, and set deadlines for document production.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board concerning unpaid remittances.

The responding party failed to attend the hearing.

The Board found that the responding party's principal acknowledged arrears but failed to provide required remittance forms.

The Board ordered the principal to prepare and submit the forms, meet with a Labour Relations Officer, and attend a further hearing with all relevant payroll records.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding unpaid remittances and unsubmitted employer report forms.

The responding party failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board found that the responding party's principal acknowledged arrears and had submitted cheques, but failed to provide the required remittance forms, preventing the union from attributing contributions to members.

The Board ordered the responding party to prepare and submit the required forms, meet with a Labour Relations Officer to review outstanding monies, and attend a subsequent hearing with all relevant payroll records.

The applicant union filed three jurisdictional dispute applications.

The Sheet Metal Workers requested an electronic hearing to hold one application in abeyance based on their reading of the applicant's brief.

The Board declined to decide the issue at this stage and instead directed the parties to attend a case management meeting.

The Board also ordered the parties to file confidential pre-consultation memorandums to facilitate settlement discussions.

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

In the post-vote process, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America sought to intervene.

The Board directed the Registrar to set a two-day hearing to determine the Carpenters' Union's status to intervene and ordered the production of the collective agreement and other documents relied upon by the proposed intervener.

The applicant union indicated it no longer sought any remedy against Sumbeam Residential Development Centre.

The Board ordered that Sumbeam Residential Development Centre be deleted from the style of cause as an affected party.

The applicant employer failed to attend the scheduled hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an employment standards matter.

After waiting 30 minutes past the scheduled commencement time, the Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The Board directed that the monies held in trust be paid out to the responding employees.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, claiming the responding party failed to accommodate his disability following a workplace injury.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions showing a connection between his allegations and the Act.

Finding no facts pleaded that would establish a reprisal or other violation of the Act, the Board dismissed the application without a hearing.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it acted arbitrarily by advising him to accept a settlement package and resign from his employment.

The applicant sought to retract his consent to the settlement agreement months later.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's advice was reasonable given the applicant's poor attendance record and the uncertain prospects of success at arbitration.

The Board also held that parties are entitled to rely on freely entered settlement agreements, and the applicant failed to allege any facts suggesting fraud, coercion, or lack of capacity.

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

The applicant raised three issues: displacement from tasks by another employee, offensive language from a co-worker, and a physical assault by a different co-worker whose subsequent discharge was being grieved by the union.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the union had acted appropriately in all instances, including its decision to represent the discharged employee with 20 years of service, and that the facts alleged did not disclose a prima facie breach of the duty of fair representation.

The employee applied for a review of a refusal to issue an order to pay under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer, agreeing that the employer would pay $50.00 and issue a revised tax information slip.

As the settlement resolved all issues in dispute, the Board terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant filed an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act requesting a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file the review.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Act to extend the time for filing the application to April 19, 2000.