OLRB 2000

The parties met with a Labour Relations Officer and agreed to adjourn the hearing to July and October 2000.

The responding party agreed to file its response by May 23, 2000, and waived procedural objections, while the applicant withdrew its argument that the responding party be deemed to accept the facts in the application.

The Board consented to the adjournment.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and referred a grievance to arbitration against the responding employers.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Board issued a consent order declaring the responding employers to be related employers bound by the applicable collective agreement.

The Board also ordered one of the responding employers to pay $2,000 in settlement and granted leave to withdraw the grievance referral.

The applicant union sought reconsideration of a March 2, 2000 decision granting a certificate to the intervenor association, and filed further particulars regarding an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board declined to reconsider the certification decision, finding that the applicant did not represent any employee who was in the bargaining unit at the time of the original application, and that the request was brought two years after the original application.

The Board directed the responding parties to respond to the further particulars filed in the unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant local unions filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the parent international union contravened sections 145-149 (the "Bill 80 provisions") by proposing to transfer the Kapuskasing geographic area and its members from Local 491 back to Local 607.

The parent union asserted the transfer was part of a broader restructuring and responded to the members' own wishes.

Noting that section 147(3) allows the Board to consider the wishes of the local trade union members, the Board directed the parties to make written representations on the desirability, logistics, and utility of conducting a secret ballot vote to test membership wishes before scheduling further hearings.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay but failed to remit the required payment to the Director in Trust within the 45-day appeal period.

The employer requested to pay a lesser amount or in installments.

The Board held that under section 68(7) of the Employment Standards Act, it cannot proceed with the review unless the required amount is paid.

The Board directed the Director of Employment Standards to advise on the proposed payment arrangements and stated it would consider extending the time for filing once full payment or satisfactory arrangements were made.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration.

Prior to the hearing, the responding employer disputed that the work in question fell within the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector of the construction industry, and filed a sector application under section 166 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions for the sector application, including requirements for compiling a list of affected parties, delivering materials, and filing responses.

The grievance referral was adjourned pending the outcome of the sector application.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, but the ballots cast by part-time employees were not segregated from those cast by full-time employees, contrary to a prior Board direction.

The Board ordered a second representation vote to ensure ballots could be properly segregated and counted separately.

The applicant employer filed an application alleging that truck drivers were engaging in an unlawful strike through a concerted refusal to work overtime.

The Board noted that while the application was currently a mere allegation, the Labour Relations Act strictly prohibits strikes during the term of a collective agreement.

Emphasizing the need for expedition in unlawful strike situations, the Board scheduled an expedited hearing and appointed a Board Officer to attempt a resolution.

The applicant union requested that the Board reconvene a certification hearing to address disputes that arose during collective bargaining regarding the exclusion of an individual from the bargaining unit and the assignment of managerial responsibilities.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the certification proceedings were concluded and that the parties must pursue other legal avenues to resolve disputes over the interpretation of the agreed-upon bargaining unit description or the status of specific individuals.

In an application for certification, the Ontario Labour Relations Board held a hearing to determine the appropriate bargaining unit, specifically regarding the impact of the Trades Qualification Act.

After reviewing the provincial collective agreement filed by the parties, the Board requested written representations clarifying whether all employee categories listed under the union recognition clause are required to hold Trades Qualification Act documentation.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing.

The responding party did not consent.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, noting that adjournments are not granted absent consent or extraordinary circumstances beyond the parties' control, and the applicant's reasons were not persuasive.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union, alleging it violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to pursue a grievance regarding his seniority date.

The union had requested documentary evidence to support his claim of continuous employment, which the applicant could not provide.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing under Rule 46, finding that the union's insistence on documentary evidence rather than relying on recollections of past promises was reasonable and did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board amended the style of cause to reflect the correct name of the responding party and granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant filed an application against the Estate of Arthur Gelber and the Ministry of Labour.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural decision directing the parties to meet with a Labour Relations Officer to attempt to settle or narrow the matters in dispute.

The Board also set out the procedure for requesting a hearing date if the matter is not resolved and directed the applicant to copy all parties on future correspondence.

The applicant, a newly amalgamated municipality, and the responding unions sought an order directing a representation vote to determine the bargaining agent for certain outside employees.

The Board issued an interim order under subsection 37(7) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, directing a representation vote to be held on November 15, 2000, based on the agreed-upon bargaining unit description and employee list.

The applicant union and the responding party municipality, which was newly created through amalgamation, sought an order directing a representation vote for certain employees.

The Board noted that the amalgamation would take effect on January 1, 2001, and the legal effect of a vote prior to that date was unclear.

However, upon the agreement and request of the parties, the Board issued an interim order under subsection 37(7) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, directing that a representation vote be held on October 19, 2000, for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The responding party union requested that the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint be dismissed without a hearing on the grounds of delay and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board noted that the request appeared to have considerable merit and directed the applicant to file submissions, including an explanation for the delay, before determining whether the application could proceed.

The Minister of Labour requested that a reference pursuant to section 115 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 be withdrawn.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and withdrew the matter with leave.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party failed to make required remittances under the Provincial Collective Agreement.

The responding party did not appear at the hearing.

The Board found the responding party bound by the agreement and in default of its remittance obligations for January, February, and March 2000.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $7,854.50 in outstanding remittances, liquidated damages, and interest, plus $749.00 for the applicant's Board filing fees.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging that the responding trade union violated section 74.

The Board found that the complaint concerned entirely internal union matters, rather than the union's representation of the applicant in relation to her employer.

As section 74 is not intended to address internal union dissatisfaction, the Board dismissed the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.