OLRB 2000

The applicant union filed a related employer and sale of business application against three corporate respondents.

Two of the respondents raised a preliminary objection, arguing the application should be held in abeyance pending a related grievance arbitration.

The Board dismissed the objection, noting the arbitration and the Board application seek different relief based on different rights.

The Board also addressed the respondents' obligation to adduce facts regarding common control and direction, and set out a schedule for the parties to exchange requests for particulars and document production.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision dated June 12, 2000.

The Board found that the previous decision was in error by directing payment to the employee.

The Board rescinded the previous decision and ordered that the wage portion of the monies held in trust be paid to the applicant, with the administration fee retained by the Government of Ontario Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision to correct an omission in its previous decision dated March 20, 2000.

The Board ordered that the wage portion of the monies held in trust by the Director be paid to the employee, Sadrudin Lalji, and that the administration fee be retained by the Government of Ontario Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant union filed a combined application alleging unfair labour practices and an unlawful lockout by the employer, arising from a dispute over contracting out work and the employer's insistence that the union abandon a related grievance.

The Board suspended normal time limits, appointed a Labour Relations Officer to attempt settlement, and scheduled an expedited hearing.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for withdrawing two grievances related to a recall and a job posting.

The union claimed it withdrew the grievances because the applicant refused to provide medical documentation regarding his physical limitations.

The Board identified key factual disputes, including whether the applicant had physical limitations and the circumstances surrounding the alleged refusal to provide medical documentation.

The Board issued directions for the production of documents and scheduled a continuation of the consultation.

The applicant union filed applications under sections 1(4), 96, and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union used its pension fund to set up contractors to undercut bids and secure scaffolding work for its members.

The responding parties brought a motion to dismiss the section 96 application and the section 1(4) application as it related to certain contractors.

The Board struck the contractors and the responding union from the section 1(4) application, finding no facts pleaded to support a related employer declaration based merely on a commercial subcontracting relationship.

However, the Board declined to dismiss the section 96 application, holding that the allegations raised novel legal issues and policy considerations regarding union pension fund investments that should not be dismissed without a full hearing on the merits.

The applicant employer requested a reconsideration of the Board's decision denying an adjournment of a scheduled hearing.

The applicant argued that its president would be out of the country on business travel that had been arranged prior to the notice of hearing.

The Board denied the request, noting its long-standing practice of granting adjournments only on agreement or in extraordinary circumstances beyond a party's control, and held that business travel plans do not constitute such circumstances.

The applicant employer filed a second request for reconsideration of a Board decision dated May 24, 2000, which denied an adjournment.

The Board found no grounds to reconsider its previous decisions and directed that no further requests for reconsideration of the May 24 decision would be entertained.

The request was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her duty of fair representation complaint due to undue delay.

The applicant cited personal difficulties, including low self-esteem and frustration, as reasons for the delay.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant's personal circumstances did not justify the extensive delay of over two years, and that proceeding would cause obvious prejudice to the responding party and intervenor.

The applicants filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act regarding a proposed restructuring of the applicant locals, along with an application for interim relief.

The Board determined that the responding parties should not be obliged to respond within the tight time-frames stipulated in the Board's Rules due to the novel and atypical nature of the case and the volume of documents filed.

The Board relieved the responding parties and any interveners of the standard time limitations, set a new schedule for filing responses, and appointed a Labour Relations Officer to explore settlement.

In a displacement application for certification, the applicant union sought to represent employees in a single bargaining unit combining full-time and part-time employees.

The responding employer and intervenor union argued that two distinct bargaining units existed.

The Board reviewed the collective agreement and its administration, noting two distinct recognition clauses and separate seniority provisions.

The Board concluded that there were two separate bargaining units and directed the parties to file written submissions on the applicant's alternative positions.

The applicant employer appealed two Orders to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act in respect of three former retail clerks.

The employer disputed the amounts owed for termination pay, vacation pay, overtime pay, public holiday pay, and unauthorized deductions.

During the hearing, two of the employees decided to pursue only the amounts in the Orders to Pay, while the employer agreed that the third employee was owed an additional amount.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the Orders to Pay were correct and supported by the facts, dismissing the applications for review and ordering the disbursement of funds held in trust, plus the agreed additional amount.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and a duty of fair representation complaint under the Labour Relations Act against her union and employer.

During the hearing, the parties agreed that the applicant's underlying grievances had been settled.

The employer argued that the settlement resolved the reprisal complaint, while the applicant sought to proceed.

The Board held that by accepting the settlement of her grievances, the applicant made an election under section 50(2) of the OHSA, barring her from proceeding with the reprisal complaint.

The Board also exercised its discretion not to inquire further, as the factual allegations and relief sought were substantially similar to the settled grievances.

The reprisal complaint was dismissed, and the duty of fair representation complaint was withdrawn with leave.

The employer, Urban Electrical Contractors, requested reconsideration of a Board decision declaring it bound to a provincial collective agreement.

The Board noted that an employee, Danny Ajamian, had previously attempted to challenge the decision but was mistakenly turned away by a Board Solicitor.

The Board directed that if the employee wished to make submissions regarding the reconsideration request, he must deliver them to the union and the employer by a specified date, and set a schedule for responsive submissions.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification before the scheduled representation vote.

The responding party employer requested a one-year bar on further applications, arguing the union was abusing the Board's process by making repeated applications without material changes in circumstances.

The Board directed the applicant to file a response to the employer's request for a bar before making a determination.

The applicant employer requested a review of an Order to Pay but failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

After waiting the customary half hour, the Board granted the responding parties' request to dismiss the matter.

The application was terminated and the Director of Employment Standards was directed to pay the employee the monies per the Order to Pay.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The intervenor union argued the application should be dismissed because it was not served with a blank Form A-3, allegedly violating the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board found that while the applicant may have been sloppy, the intervenor suffered no prejudice and there was no evidence of deliberate non-compliance.

Having regard to the representation vote where more than fifty per cent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant employee sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for unpaid wages and termination pay.

The employer had unilaterally and retroactively changed the employee's remuneration from a base salary to straight commission.

The Board found that the employee was not a commissioned salesperson prior to being notified of the change, entitling him to unpaid wages for that period.

Furthermore, the unilateral change constituted a constructive dismissal which the employee did not condone, entitling him to termination pay.

The application was allowed.

The applicant filed an application against the responding parties.

The parties reached a settlement, and the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The applicant Ministry of Correctional Services sought to suspend two orders issued by a Ministry of Labour inspector following an assault on a correctional officer by young offender inmates.

The Board noted that the parties appeared to be in substantial agreement regarding compliance with the first order and that the main dispute regarding the second order concerned the compliance date.

The Board declined to issue a decision on the suspension request immediately, instead appointing a Labour Relations Officer to meet with the parties to canvass the possibility of a settlement.