OLRB 2000

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay made under the Employment Standards Act.

Shortly before the hearing, the applicant's solicitor requested an adjournment due to illness, which was not granted.

On the scheduled hearing date, neither the applicant nor its solicitor attended.

The Board refused to adjourn the matter in their absence, noting that a party cannot assume an adjournment request will be granted and should send a representative if counsel is unavailable.

The application was dismissed, and the funds held in trust were ordered to be paid to the responding party.

The applicant notified the Ontario Labour Relations Board that it was withdrawing its request for reasonable costs and its request for reconsideration.

As there were no other outstanding issues, the Board terminated the proceeding.

The applicant, a hair stylist, sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.

Following a series of workplace disagreements, the applicant stormed out of the salon and stated she was leaving.

Over the weekend, she attempted to retract her resignation, but the employer refused to accept the retraction without an acknowledgment of fault, which the applicant declined to provide.

The Board found that the applicant had subjectively intended to resign and objectively conveyed that intention to the employer, and that her resignation could not be unilaterally withdrawn.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a reply to a previous Board decision.

The Board directed the responding party and intervenor to respond by a specified date.

If they maintain their request to dismiss the application without a consultation, they must provide reasons assuming all facts pleaded by the applicant are true.

If no replies are received, the matter will be listed for consultation.

The applicant appealed under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant and the employer reached a settlement.

Pursuant to the settlement, the applicant agreed to withdraw the appeal.

The Board terminated the matter.

The applicant union applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following the amalgamation of Northern Credit Union Limited and Valley Savings (Renfrew County) Credit Union Inc. The Board declared the amalgamation constituted a sale of business.

As the amalgamation resulted in an intermingling of employees represented by the applicant and the responding party union, the parties agreed to a representation vote.

The Board directed a representation vote to determine the successor bargaining agent for the agreed voting constituency.

Following a representation vote in which more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued two certificates pursuant to section 160(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

One certificate was issued for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry in Ontario, and another for all other sectors in the County of Lambton.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent carpenters and construction labourers employed by the responding party.

A representation vote was scheduled.

Shortly before the vote, an intervening trade union asserted it had an existing collective agreement with the responding party, making the application a timely displacement application.

Neither the applicant nor the responding party had disclosed this potential claim in their filings.

The Board cancelled the scheduled representation vote and directed the intervener to file its submissions regarding the validity of the collective agreement and the applicant's request to amend the bargaining unit description.

The responding party, Michelle Burke, submitted correspondence purporting to seek reconsideration of a prior Board decision.

The Board advised her that the request did not conform with the Board's Rules of Procedure and could not be processed.

As no properly completed request was subsequently filed, the Board confirmed that the matter remains terminated.

The applicant employer sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring him to pay four weeks' termination pay to a former employee.

The employee failed to return from vacation, claiming medical reasons through her mother, but never provided a medical certificate or an expected return date despite the employer's requests.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employee repudiated her contract of employment by refusing to show up for work, which constituted wilful neglect of duty under s. 57(10)(c) of the Employment Standards Act.

The order to pay termination pay was rescinded.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer breached the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by unilaterally introducing a voluntary performance sharing program.

The employer argued that the program was permitted under the management rights clause or, alternatively, that the union had consented to its introduction.

The Board found that the program impacted wages and was a negotiable matter.

The Board concluded that the union had not agreed to the program's introduction, resulting in a technical breach of section 70 of the Act.

A declaration was issued, but no other remedies were granted as the employer had not intended to breach the Act.

The applicant referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

A defaulting witness failed to appear at the continuation of the hearing despite a previously issued arrest warrant.

The Board issued a new arrest warrant to apprehend the witness and compel his attendance, along with specified employment and payroll records, at the next scheduled hearing date.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision dated February 9, 2000.

The applicant filed documents and took issue with the union's response, stating an intention to raise issues with the Labour Relations Officer.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the applicant did not raise any facts that were not or could not have been raised earlier, nor any matters not already considered by the Board.

The responding party objected to the processing of the application on the basis that it was not filed in a timely manner.

The applicant had attempted to file the application multiple times, but it was returned due to improper filing methods (facsimile and registered mail) before finally being hand-delivered.

The Board exercised its discretion to grant an extension of time for the filing of the application, finding it appropriate under the circumstances.

The matter was directed to proceed in the usual manner.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union, alleging it acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith when it credited another employee with seniority for time spent working outside the bargaining unit.

The union had advanced the seniority issue based on the employee's claim and the employer's confirmation of a past practice.

The Board found that the union acted on a reasonably held belief that there was a past practice of crediting such time, and therefore did not violate section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The application was dismissed.

The responding party requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on damages, arguing that the matter should be deferred pending the disposition of its application for judicial review of the Board's prior decision on liability.

The Board denied the request, noting that the responding party did not claim prejudice and that section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires grievances to be processed expeditiously.

The Board found that the balance of convenience favoured proceeding to hear the evidence while it was reasonably fresh.

The applicant appealed an Inspector's Order.

Notice of the hearing was sent to the applicant, but the applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

Upon hearing the representations of the responding parties, the Board dismissed the appeal.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 65 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the union's bargaining rights.

The parties agreed to resolve the matter by conducting a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held in accordance with the parties' agreement, with the outcome determining whether the termination application is withdrawn or the union abandons its bargaining rights.

The applicant employee appealed an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying her claim for termination and severance pay.

The employee had been absent from work due to illness and was told by her manager not to bother coming back if she did not report to work the next day.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board found that the employee was terminated and did not quit, and that a subsequent offer of employment at a different location was a new offer after termination which she was not obligated to accept.

The Board ordered the employer to pay termination and severance pay.

The applicant filed an appeal under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear.

After waiting 30 minutes past the scheduled start time with no indication of an adjournment request, the Board dismissed the appeal and terminated the matter.