OLRB 2000

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an Order to Pay.

The responding employers wrote to the Board providing address changes and requesting advice on several issues.

The Board noted the address changes and clarified that, as an adjudicative tribunal, it cannot provide legal advice to parties.

The Board suggested the employers seek advice elsewhere and noted that the issue of related or successor employers would not be litigated unless raised by a party.

The applicant filed an application against the responding party union.

The Board previously directed the applicant to notify the Board by April 25, 2000, that all material had been filed with the responding party and the employer, failing which the application would be terminated.

The applicant failed to notify the Board as directed.

Consequently, the Board terminated the application.

The applicants filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the respondent trade union, alleging it failed to provide sufficient information regarding a pension plan merger prior to a ratification vote and challenging the settlement of a grievance.

The Board dismissed the application for delay, noting it was filed 10 months after the ratification vote without explanation.

The Board found that permitting the application to proceed would be highly prejudicial to the union and the employer, who had continued to manage their collective bargaining relationship based on the ratified agreement.

The applicant appealed an order made by an Occupational Health and Safety Act inspector.

The appeal was filed after the 30-day statutory deadline.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, noting that it was untimely and there is no statutory provision permitting the Board to relieve against the time limit for such appeals.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union requested a one-year extension of its trusteeship over Local 1883 pursuant to section 89(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board directed the applicant to notify the affected members of the request and provided the members until June 30, 2000, to submit any opposition in writing.

The Board granted an interim extension of the trusteeship until July 31, 2000, pending receipt of submissions.

The responding party union requested reconsideration of the Board's decision not to seal the ballot box in a representation vote for a termination application.

The union argued the application was untimely.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no reason to change its original decision.

The applicant employer sought an adjournment of a hearing to review an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay, citing the President's pre-existing business commitment out of the country.

The Board granted the adjournment on the condition that the applicant reimburse the employee $300 for costs associated with his attendance at the scheduled hearing.

If the applicant fails to pay within one week, the adjournment request and the application will be deemed dismissed.

The applicant filed an appeal of an Employment Standards Officer's decision two days after the 45-day statutory deadline.

She explained that she mailed the appeal on the last possible day but was delayed due to unexpectedly giving birth.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the filing deadline and accepted the application.

The applicants sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer regarding a former employee who worked for them for seven weeks.

The officer found the employee worked 52 to 61 hours per week, but the applicants testified she worked approximately 5 hours per weekday plus some babysitting.

The employee did not appear at the hearing.

The Board accepted the applicants' uncontradicted evidence that the employee worked 187 hours total and was compensated at a permitted rate.

The Board amended the order to reflect only $65.87 owed in unpaid vacation pay, directing the balance of funds held in trust to be returned to the applicants.

The applicant employer filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The application was received one day after the 45-day statutory deadline.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Act to extend the time for filing, noting that the application and requisite funds were mailed prior to the deadline and the delay was due to the mail system.

The responding party filed a second request for reconsideration of a Board decision that found a sale of a business and related employer status between Volta Electrical Contractors Ltd. and Urban Electrical Contractors.

The second request raised the issue of whether the Vice-Chair who participated in the original decision should deal with the reconsideration request.

The Vice-Chair concluded that, given the unusual circumstances, it was appropriate for the matter to be dealt with at a hearing by a current Vice-Chair and directed the Registrar to set the matter down for a hearing.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order under the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed beyond the 45-day statutory time limit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board requested submissions on why the time limit should be extended, but the applicant did not respond.

The Board found the application untimely and dismissed it, as there were no grounds to justify an extension of time.

The applicant requested reconsideration of the Board's decision declining to issue a pre-hearing production order in a construction industry grievance arbitration.

The Board found that the applicant's reliance on jurisprudence regarding sections 69 and 1(4) applications was misplaced, as those provisions place the onus on responding parties.

The Board concluded that the reconsideration application added nothing new to the legal arguments already considered and denied the request.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire filed, the Board ordered the issuance of certificates pursuant to section 160(1) of the Act.

The responding party's request for reconsideration of a prior decision regarding voter eligibility remained pending.

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing and entered into a consent order requiring the responding party to produce specific documentation at the rescheduled hearing.

The Board issued directions incorporating the terms of the parties' agreement, including a requirement to meet and review the relevant documentation prior to the new hearing date.

The applicant employer applied for 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 filed a complaint alleging that the responding trade union breached section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by repeatedly denying her applications for membership.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding no arguable case.

The Board held that section 74 regulates the quality of representation a trade union provides to employees vis-à-vis their employer, and does not govern a union's internal decisions regarding admission into membership.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of approximately 19 part-time employees working at the Acadian Court Restaurant within a Hudsons Bay Company store.

The employer argued the unit was inappropriate as it would carve out one department from at least 14 in the store, leading to undue fragmentation.

The Board found that the restaurant was functionally integrated with the rest of the store and that the employees shared similar working conditions and corporate policies with other store employees.

Applying its policy against departmental units to avoid serious labour relations problems, the Board held the proposed unit was not appropriate and dismissed the application.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint against the union for failing to advance his grievance to arbitration.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, noting it was filed out of time and the additional material provided did not establish a prima facie case of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union.