OLRB 2000

The applicant, a union steward, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union after it withdrew her grievances concerning a shift transfer and subsequent lay-off.

The applicant alleged the union failed to adequately consult her or keep her informed.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union properly investigated the transfer, consulted senior officials and legal counsel, and came to a bona fide conclusion that the collective agreement did not protect the applicant from the transfer.

The Board held that the union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union had previously negotiated a settlement of the applicant's grievances, which the applicant signed, accepting a substantial sum of money.

The applicant claimed he was pressured to sign and was mentally unable to deal with the matter, but provided no medical evidence.

The Board found that the applicant failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union.

The application was dismissed without a hearing.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board and requested a default judgment because the responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

The Board reviewed the file and declined to issue a default judgment based on the materials filed.

The matter was ordered to proceed to a hearing as scheduled.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend, prompting the applicant to request a default judgment.

The Board reviewed the file and declined to issue the requested default judgment based on the material filed.

The matter was ordered to proceed to the scheduled hearing.

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

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support and ordered a representation vote.

Although the employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act disagreeing with the bargaining unit description and the estimated number of individuals, the Board declined to seal the ballot box because the employer agreed to count the ballots.

A dissenting Board member argued that the vote should not take place or the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification to represent employees of The Corporation of the Township of Cardiff.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board ordered a representation vote.

Although the employer gave notice under section 8.1 disagreeing with the bargaining unit description and estimate, the Board directed that the ballots be counted because the employer agreed to it.

Board Member J.A. Ronson dissented, arguing the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues are resolved.

The applicant union referred a matter to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following an initial hearing, the parties agreed to attempt to develop member profiles.

The Board issued an interim order authorizing the responding party to release health care information if an agreement on member profiles is reached, and adjourned the matter to a later date.

The applicant filed an application under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act regarding her termination.

At the hearing, the parties agreed that the applicant's two periods of employment constituted continuous employment and that her termination was not for wilful misconduct.

The employer agreed to pay the applicant her full entitlement of $2,400.00.

The Board issued a consent order directing the employer to pay the agreed amount.

The applicants, who were members of the local union bargaining committee, filed an application to decertify the union.

In response, the union suspended them from holding union office, citing a conflict of interest and a breach of their fiduciary duties and the union constitution.

The applicants filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the suspension was an unlawful penalty under section 87(2) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's action was a legitimate, measured response to the applicants' conflict of interest and breach of their obligations as union officers, rather than a penalty for exercising their statutory rights as employees.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order declaring the responding party bound by the collective agreement and ordering the payment of damages for unpaid wages, vacation pay, benefits, and union dues totaling over $17,000.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rescinded paragraph 2 of its January 17, 2000 decision, which had found the applicant to be a trade union.

The Board noted that the applicant had not in fact established trade union status and would be required to do so before any certificate could issue.

The applicant employer requested a review of an Order to Pay.

After resolving issues with the vast majority of employees, the applicant informed the Board it did not wish to proceed with its appeal regarding the last two employees.

The application was terminated and the Director of Employment Standards was requested to pay out the monies as per the Order to Pay.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying his claim for overtime pay.

The applicant argued he was a lead hand, not a manager, and thus entitled to overtime pay for the excessive hours he worked.

The Board found that the applicant's position as Afternoon Shift Supervisor was managerial in character, as he supervised up to 85 employees, attended management meetings, and only occasionally worked alongside production employees.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought a review of an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for unpaid public holiday pay and termination pay.

The employer argued the employee was not entitled to public holiday pay because she was on temporary lay-off during the holidays, and that she was not terminated but laid off.

The Board found that the employee did not fall within any of the exceptions in section 25(1) of the Employment Standards Act and was therefore entitled to public holiday pay.

The Board also found that the employee was terminated, not laid off, and upheld the order to pay.

The applicant union brought an application under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding a jurisdictional dispute on a construction project.

Prior to the hearing, the union parties entered into Minutes of Settlement dividing the work jurisdiction between the Painters and the Sheet Metal Workers.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order confirming the agreement of the parties as a full settlement of all issues arising from the jurisdictional dispute.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a June 19, 2000 decision dismissing her application, claiming a factual background document was filed but missing from the file.

The Vice-Chair granted the applicant the benefit of the doubt, revoked the previous dismissal, and directed the applicant to file further submissions explaining the delay and responding to the union's factual assertions before deciding whether to advance the matter to a consultation.

The applicant union sought an order requiring a non-party, Sobeys Ontario, to produce certain documents prior to the continuation of the hearing.

The applicant had also served a summons on a Sobeys representative.

The responding parties and intervenor objected due to lack of notice.

The Board ruled that it does not have the power under section 111(2)(c) of the Act to order a non-party to produce documents outside of the hearing process.

However, the Board permitted the applicant to summons the individual to appear at the next hearing date, at which time the parties and the summonsed individual could make arguments regarding production and confidentiality.

The applicant employer requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision that denied an extension of time to file applications for review of Employment Standards Orders to Pay.

The Board applied its established threshold test for reconsideration, noting that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue its case based on correspondence already considered in the original decision.

The Board clarified its role, explaining that it does not issue Orders to Pay but only reviews them de novo if an application is filed in time.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The employers brought a preliminary motion to adjourn applications filed by two unions regarding a reorganization of food distribution warehouses.

The employers argued the applications were premature because employees represented by the responding union had not yet been moved to the new consolidated facility, meaning no intermingling had occurred.

The Board agreed that it had no jurisdiction to order a representation vote under section 69(6) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 until intermingling actually took place.

The Board adjourned the proceedings but directed the scheduling of hearing dates for early the following year to mitigate the responding union's concerns about delay prejudicing its position.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union more than three years after an arbitrator dismissed his grievance regarding his discharge from employment.

The responding party brought a motion to dismiss the application for excessive delay.

The applicant attributed the delay to ignorance of the law, financial difficulties, ineffective consultants, and waiting for a WSIB claim outcome.

The Board found these explanations unsatisfactory, noting that excusable delay should be measured in months rather than years, and dismissed the application.