OLRB 2000

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The intervenor union requested that the application be dismissed for non-compliance with the Rules of Procedure or postponed pending a contempt motion and Canadian Labour Congress proceedings.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's requests, finding no valid reason to delay the final determination.

As more than 50 percent of the ballots cast in the representation vote were in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board reconsider and vary its previous decision regarding a representation vote.

The Board revoked its prior decision, which had been issued before receiving all correspondence from the applicant's counsel.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties and section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board ordered that the results of the first representation vote be disregarded and directed that a new representation vote be held for the construction labourers employed by the responding party.

The employer appealed an Order of an Employment Standards Officer.

The Board had previously directed the release of monies held in trust to the employee because the employer's grounds for appeal could not possibly succeed, but a hearing was still required.

The employer failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, and the Board dismissed the appeal.

The applicant filed duty of fair representation complaints against the union.

Following a prior Board decision directing the union to provide details about the status of the applicant's grievances, the union provided correspondence indicating it had kept the applicant informed and explained why the grievances were withdrawn.

The applicant subsequently claimed he had not received any response.

The Board directed the applicant to file a reply addressing the union's correspondence, detailing his allegations of bad faith, and explaining why he failed to mention prior union letters at the previous hearing, failing which the applications would be dismissed.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision.

The Officer had determined that the applicant's claim was filed past the six-month limitation period under section 82.3(1) of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board found no dispute that the claim was filed out of time and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The matter was terminated.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die or, alternatively, to withdraw its application.

The responding party opposed both requests.

The Board denied the adjournment but permitted the applicant to withdraw its application.

The scheduled hearing was cancelled.

In a series of construction industry grievances concerning scaffolding work, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued case management directions.

The Board ordered that the newest grievance proceed first, as it offered the best opportunity to litigate based on recent events.

The Board granted the Carpenters union status to participate in the new grievance but denied them participation in the older, bundled grievances.

The Board also limited the scope of documentary production required from the responding employer to ensure an efficient hearing process.

The applicant filed submissions identifying seven part-time nurses at Windsor Regional Hospital, but the Board could not determine if any worked in the Chronic Care Unit, which was the area the applicant wished to work in.

The Board directed the applicant to clarify which of the identified nurses worked in the Chronic Care Unit and ordered the responding union to provide the applicant with the necessary assistance and documents to answer the question.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had the requisite membership support to order a representation vote.

The intervenor argued that a recent Superior Court injunction against individuals associated with the applicant precluded the vote or required the ballot box to be sealed.

The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to consider the intervenor's arguments regarding the effect of the court order.

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

Subsequently, the definition of employer in section 126 of the Act was amended.

The responding party argued that the new definition should apply, while the applicant argued that the definition in effect at the time of filing should apply.

The Board held that the definition of employer as it existed on the date of filing applies, as there was no clear legislative intent to give the amendment retroactive effect.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay unpaid wages and vacation pay.

The employer did not dispute owing the money but stated it had no funds to pay and sought a payment schedule.

The Board dismissed the application, holding that it has no authority under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act to determine a payment schedule for an undisputed debt.

The employer must arrange payment directly with the Ministry of Labour.

The applicant, a bargaining unit president, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for failing to advance his grievance to arbitration.

The grievance concerned a disciplinary letter placed on his file by the employer for unauthorized use of photocopying facilities.

The union had negotiated a settlement that replaced the original letter with a less severe version and subsequently withdrew the grievance.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's decision not to advance the grievance to arbitration was reasonable given the minor nature of the discipline, the applicant's prior history, and the union's success in mitigating the letter's contents.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a December 16, 1999 decision of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board noted its broad discretion to reconsider decisions under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but emphasized that good and valid reasons are required.

Finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue the case and that the request did not fall within any recognized grounds for reconsideration, the Board dismissed the request.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of the Board's decision dated April 20, 2000.

The Board noted its broad discretion under section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to reconsider decisions, but emphasized that it only does so when there are good and valid reasons, such as an obvious error, important policy issues, new evidence, or lack of previous opportunity to make representations.

Finding that the applicants' request was merely an attempt to reargue the case and did not fall within any of the accepted grounds, the Board dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a section 74 duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

During the proceedings, the intervenor employer sought to produce the applicant's medical documentation to the union but required the applicant's written consent to avoid liability under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant refused to provide consent, arguing the union already had sufficient information and that the records contained irrelevant information about a prior injury.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's refusal to disclose sensitive but potentially critical information prejudiced the union's ability to defend the application.

The employer and intervenors filed submissions regarding a claim of abandoned bargaining rights and the Minister of Labour's authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The parties argued that bargaining rights had not been abandoned and that the Board could not dismiss a reference from the Minister without a hearing under Rule 46.

The Board found the issues sufficiently complex to warrant a full hearing and directed the Registrar to schedule the matter.

During a union certification application, the employer challenged the ballot of a worker on the basis that the worker did not possess a valid social insurance number or work authorization under the Immigration Act.

The employer sought to introduce evidence of the worker's undocumented status, arguing that the unlawful nature of the employment contract meant the worker was not an 'employee' under the Labour Relations Act.

The Board held that the worker's immigration status was irrelevant to their status as an employee under the Act, as the performance of work and payment of wages were not inherently unlawful.

The Board refused to permit the evidence to be led.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice application alleging the responding party employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The employer asserted that its commercial contract with a hotel was an important factor in its ability to meet the union's bargaining demands.

The union sought production of this contract.

The Board ordered the employer to produce the contract and scheduled a hearing for the remaining issues.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union and its officials engaged in an unlawful strike.

The parties reached a Memorandum of Settlement in which they agreed that any work refusal or slowdown contrary to the Act is unlawful and that the union would take immediate steps to end such activity.

Based on the consent of the parties, the Board terminated the proceedings.

The applicant, a security guard, was discharged from his employment and denied termination and severance pay on the basis of alleged wilful misconduct.

The employer cited three incidents: mishandling a potential crime scene, falsifying a log entry, and playing computer games on duty.

The Board found that the mishandling of the scene was at most an error in judgment, the falsification of the log entry was not proven, and the evidence was insufficient to establish that the applicant played computer games after being directed not to.

The Board concluded the employer failed to establish wilful misconduct and held the applicant was entitled to pay in lieu of notice and severance pay.