OLRB 2000

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the intervenor union.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the intervenor requested the Board postpone issuing a certificate pending a contempt motion in Superior Court and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.

The Board declined to postpone the decision, finding no valid reason to delay the final determination and noting that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires the Board to certify the applicant when a majority of ballots are cast in its favour.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for August 10, 2000.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment and directed the Registrar to schedule a new hearing date in consultation with the parties.

The applicant sought to review an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board initially found the application to be untimely because it was filed after the 45-day limit, interpreting the limit as calendar days rather than working days.

Upon reconsideration on its own motion, the Board noted that the applicant had originally delivered its submissions to the incorrect address provided on the Order to Pay itself on the 45th day.

The Board found the application was timely and directed it to be processed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates.

As there was no opposition from the responding party or intervenors, the Board granted the adjournment and directed the Registrar to schedule four new hearing dates.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act 17 days after the 45-day deadline.

The employer requested an extension of time, explaining that its Assistant Manager had contacted an Employment Standards Officer for help with the forms before the deadline but did not receive a call back.

The Board found that the employer had formed the intent to appeal within the time limit and did not file in an inordinately tardy manner.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Act to extend the time for filing the application.

The applicant sought to withdraw his application for decertification after a representation vote was held.

The Board noted that issues regarding alleged confusion surrounding the vote would be addressed in a separate file.

Because not more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in opposition to the responding party union, the Board dismissed the application without a hearing.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties subsequently concluded Minutes of Settlement to resolve the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave for the application to be withdrawn.

The applicant union requested an adjournment sine die pending Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, adjourning the application for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant employer sought to suspend two health and safety orders requiring employees to wear appropriate protective footwear.

The Ministry of Labour and the union responded that the employees had already purchased and were wearing the required footwear, and the employer had reimbursed them.

The Board found that because the employer had fully complied with the orders and faced no ongoing prejudice or additional costs, the suspension request was moot.

The application for suspension was dismissed, and the underlying appeal was referred to mediation.

The applicant requested the production of documents.

The parties were unable to agree on the remaining documents and the method of making them available.

The Board directed the parties to meet with a Labour Relations Officer prior to the hearings to assist with producing the relevant documentation pursuant to section 1(5) of the Act.

In a certification application, the applicant sought production of documents and particulars from the responding party and the intervenor.

The Board declined to provide notice of the proceeding to other bargaining agents and unrepresented employees, as their interests would not be directly affected.

The Board ordered the intervenor and the company to produce collective bargaining notes and proposals relating to the recognition clause, finding them arguably relevant to determining the identity of the employer.

The Board also directed a Labour Relations Officer to consult with the parties regarding an agreed statement of facts.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearings.

Having regard to the agreement reached between the parties, the Board adjourned the hearings scheduled for February 8 and April 4, 2000, and rescheduled the matter for June 23 and 26, 2000.

The applicant employer filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Ministry of Labour advised that the cheques provided by the employer were returned NSF.

The employer failed to respond to the Board's direction for submissions regarding the payment.

As the requisite payment under section 68(7) was not made, the Board dismissed the application for review.

The applicant appealed an order made by an Occupational Health and Safety Inspector which required workers installing hangers and brackets on a casino construction project to hold a certificate of qualification as an Electrician Branch 1.

The order had resulted in the applicant's members being removed from the job and replaced by electricians.

On the fourth day of the hearing, the parties reached a resolution.

Pursuant to their memorandum of agreement, the Board rescinded the Inspector's order and noted the Ministry of Labour's policies regarding jurisdictional disputes and compulsory trades.

The applicant requested that the matters be adjourned sine die pending settlement discussions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, adjourning the matters for a period not exceeding one year, after which they will be deemed terminated if no further request is made.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay for outstanding vacation and termination pay in respect of two employees.

The employer led evidence that the employees were casual employees.

The Ministry of Labour agreed that under section 2(f) of Regulation 327 to the Employment Standards Act, casual employees who may elect to work or not are not entitled to termination pay.

The employer did not dispute the vacation pay entitlement.

The Board varied the Order to Pay, directing the vacation pay to the employees and returning the termination pay portion to the employer.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board previously directed a representation vote.

An intervenor union filed an intervention, noting it already represents journeymen and apprentice elevator constructors employed by the responding party in certain sectors, and requested they be excluded from the bargaining unit description.

The Board amended its previous decision to direct that if any student, foreperson, journeyman, or apprentice elevator constructor wishes to cast a ballot, their ballot shall be segregated and not counted until the Board orders or the parties agree.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the matter.

The applicant union sought to adjourn the hearing of its certification application so it could be heard together with a newly filed section 96 unfair labour practice application concerning the termination of an employee.

The responding party employer opposed the adjournment, arguing the matters should be heard separately and it needed time to prepare.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding the applicant's explanation for the late filing reasonable and noting an overlap in evidence and witnesses between the pre-vote and post-vote events.

The Board directed the matters be scheduled together.

The applicant union sought a related employer declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that several residential home building and land development companies were under common control or direction.

The Board found that while the companies were engaged in associated or related activities, they were not under common control or direction.

The common individual among the companies acted primarily as a passive investor in the non-union companies and did not exercise operational or labour relations control.

The application and the related grievance were dismissed.