OLRB 2000

The applicants filed an application to terminate bargaining rights.

A vote was held and the ballot box was sealed pending the resolution of status disputes and allegations under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act.

At the scheduled hearing, the responding party requested an adjournment due to confusion over the hearing date caused by the Board's standard practices and notices.

The Board granted the adjournment, rescheduling the hearing to peremptory dates the following week.

The applicant union requested a pre-hearing production order in a construction industry grievance referral under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined the request, noting that it does not routinely issue pre-hearing production orders in such referrals and saw no particular reason to do so in this case.

The Board advised the applicant that it could summons the information for the day of the hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue her grievances regarding missed work and her subsequent discharge.

The applicant claimed her discharge was the result of systemic racial discrimination by the employer.

The union investigated the grievances, considered the applicant's submissions, and obtained an independent legal opinion which concluded there was no evidence of systemic discrimination.

Based on this, the union decided not to pursue the grievances.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no prima facie case that the union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner, as it had carefully investigated the claims and relied on reasonable grounds and expert advice.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision dismissing his applications for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board denied the request, finding that the applicant had not presented any new relevant facts or arguments that he was prevented from presenting earlier, and that his allegations did not advance his original case.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The applicant reiterated his allegations regarding the union's handling of his grievances and settlement, and its alleged failure to safeguard his rights under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Board applied its established principles for reconsideration, noting that the applicant merely disagreed with the original decision and did not present new evidence or demonstrate an obvious error.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that dismissed his duty of fair representation complaint.

The request was filed late but permitted to proceed.

The Board applied its established principles for reconsideration and found that the applicant merely disagreed with the original decision, without raising new evidence, obvious errors, or important policy issues.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay overtime to its employees, who operated non-emergency medical transport vehicles.

The employer argued the employees were exempt from overtime pay under the Employment Standards Act as ambulance drivers or helpers.

The Ministry of Labour contended the vehicles did not meet the definition of an ambulance under the Ambulance Act.

The Board found that the Ambulance Act definition was not determinative and that the employer's vehicles and services were sufficiently similar to ambulance services, with unpredictable scheduling.

The Board concluded the employees were exempt ambulance drivers and helpers, allowed the application, and rescinded the Order to Pay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision to correct an error in its previous decision dated December 31, 1999.

The Board amended the bargaining unit description for the employees of the responding party and directed that an amended certificate be issued to the applicant union.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay in the amount of $652.49.

The employer subsequently indicated it was not continuing its appeal.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board permitted the appeal to be withdrawn and directed the funds held in trust to be paid to the employee.

The applicants requested an adjournment of the hearing to allow the Board to entertain a request for reconsideration of a prior decision that denied certain union locals standing to intervene.

The Board denied the adjournment, finding that no formal request for reconsideration had actually been filed, no extension of time had been granted, and any such request made at this late stage of the proceedings would be untimely.

The Board directed that the hearing on the merits proceed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

Following an initial representation vote, the parties agreed to disregard the results and requested a second vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered a second representation vote to be held, with eligibility based on the original voter list.

The applicant, a supplier of portable toilets, appealed an inspector's order issued to a constructor regarding inadequate toilet and clean-up facilities at a construction site.

The inspector found that the portable toilets lacked functioning traps, paper towels, and hot running water, contrary to O. Reg. 213/91.

The Board found the inspector's evidence credible and uncontradicted regarding the state of the facilities on the day of inspection.

The Board dismissed the appeal, concluding that the order was justified and that the applicant was not prejudiced by any alleged lack of clarity in the order.

The applicant filed an application under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite receiving notice.

After waiting more than the usual half-hour, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision dismissing her complaint.

The application was filed 9 days after the 45-day statutory deadline.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for filing, noting that the applicant had formed the intent to file on time but was delayed due to medical problems, and there was no real prejudice to the responding parties.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding employer and intervenor union advised the Board that they had recently concluded and ratified a collective agreement, rendering the application untimely.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions providing reasons why the application should be considered timely before deciding whether to order a representation vote or dismiss the application.

The applicant union requested to add Richard H. Gay Holdings Ltd. and Jarigay Investments Limited as responding parties and to amend its production request to include documents relating to these entities.

The Board granted the request to add the responding parties and directed the Registrar to reprocess the Notices to Employees.

Regarding the production of documents pursuant to s. 1(5) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board directed the responding parties to bring all arguably relevant documents in their possession or control to the next scheduled hearing date, where the parties could make submissions on any outstanding production issues.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision dismissing her duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

She argued that she was disadvantaged by a language barrier, lacked counsel at the hearing, and that the Board failed to address human rights issues.

The Board granted an extension of time to file the request but dismissed the reconsideration on the merits, finding that the applicant fully participated in the hearing, that human rights allegations were not raised in her original pleadings, and that the Board's jurisdiction in a duty of fair representation consultation differs from that of an arbitrator.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union, alleging it settled her discharge grievance without her authorization.

The union had negotiated a settlement reinstating the applicant without compensation and with a suspension, but the applicant refused to accept the proposed hours of work.

The union signed the settlement to preserve her job, but the applicant refused to return to work and was deemed to have quit.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the union acted competently, professionally, and not arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The Minister of Labour referred a matter to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 3(2) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act to determine whether the employers were a 'hospital'.

The employers subsequently withdrew their objection to the application of the Act.

The Board therefore advised the Minister that the employers are a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Act.

The Board directed the Registrar to consult with the parties to set two hearing dates, following the issuance of a decision in a related matter (Board File No. 3227-99-R) that the parties had been awaiting.