OLRB 2000

In an application for certification, the parties disputed the voter eligibility of several positions, arguing they should be excluded under section 1(3) of the Labour Relations Act due to managerial functions or confidential capacity relating to labour relations.

The Board found that the Assistant to the Director of Finance was properly excluded as part of the managerial team due to her role as a 'change agent' with access to financial information.

However, the Volunteer Coordinator, Network & Facilities Manager, and two bookkeepers were found to be employees within the bargaining unit, as their duties did not involve regular and material involvement in confidential labour relations matters or independent managerial authority.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to process his grievances.

The union argued the application should be dismissed without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case, as one grievance was out of time and the other related to a position outside the bargaining unit.

The Board directed the applicant to file a reply to the union's submissions before deciding whether to dismiss the application.

The applicant employer sought an extension of time to file an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The deadline was May 1, 2000, and the application was received on May 5, 2000.

The employer explained that it expected the Order to Pay to be sent to its counsel, and upon realizing counsel had not received it, promptly filed the application and made the requisite payment.

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

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

The Board attempted to deliver notice of the hearing to the responding parties at the address provided by the applicant, but the courier returned the documents indicating the parties were no longer there or the address was incomplete.

The Board declined to proceed without reasonable notice to the responding parties and adjourned the matter sine die for up to one year, pending the provision of up-to-date contact information by the applicant.

The union appealed an Inspector's decision that an underground collision between a haulage truck and a parked pick-up truck was not required to be reported under section 53 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act or section 21(5)(d) of the Mining Regulations.

The employer and the Ministry of Labour argued that the regulation limited the reporting requirement to accidents causing 'major damage', which this was not.

The Board found that the regulation was 'in addition to' the statutory requirement, not a limitation on it.

Given the remedial nature of the Act and the importance of informing the Joint Health and Safety Committee, the Board interpreted section 53 as requiring the reporting of the accident.

The appeal was allowed.

The intervenor, Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675, filed an intervention raising issues similar to another recent case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board cancelled the scheduled representation vote to allow the applicant and responding party time to address the issues raised in the intervention, and set a schedule for written submissions.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing despite being duly notified.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and ordered the funds held in trust to be paid to the employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 alleging a violation of section 74 by the responding party union.

The Board dismissed the application without prejudice because the applicant failed to serve the responding party and intervenor, and failed to provide a detailed statement of material facts as required by the Board's Rules.

The Ministry of Labour noted a calculation error in the Board's previous decision regarding the distribution of monies paid in trust.

The Board reconsidered its decision and amended the amount to be paid to the employer from $5,221.87 to $5,744.06.

The Board issued a decision correcting a clerical error in its previous decision dated June 9, 2000, which directed a representation vote.

The bargaining unit description was corrected to refer to 'all employees of the Corporation of the County of Grey in its home or homes for the aged in the Town of Markdale' instead of the Town of Durham.

The responding party was directed to post the corrected decision alongside the original.

The applicant appealed an Inspector's order and requested a suspension of the order pending the appeal.

The Ministry of Labour subsequently advised the Board that the order had been rescinded and requested that the matters be terminated.

The Board directed that the proceedings would be deemed terminated without further notice unless a party objected within 10 days.

The union appealed an Inspector's decision declining to make an order after the employer refused to allow the Joint Health and Safety Committee (JHSC) to inspect areas of the workplace where contractors were working under 'care and custody' agreements.

The employer and the Ministry of Labour raised a preliminary objection that the appeal did not make out a prima facie case and sought prospective remedies beyond the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objection, finding an arguable case that the employer's policy of limiting JHSC inspections violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The matter was remitted to a Labour Relations Officer for settlement discussions.

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

The applicant had been terminated for failing to call in when absent, and the union was unable to prove his allegations of reprisal at arbitration.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration application, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue the matter and had not adduced any new evidence or raised new policy considerations that would warrant reconsideration.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision amending the style of cause in a previous decision to correct an error regarding a specific file number and to include the full list of file numbers submitted.

The Board also directed the Registrar to arrange for the counting of the ballots.

The Canadian Health Care Workers (CHCW) requested intervenor status in certification displacement applications brought by the CAW-Canada, as well as copies of documents filed in those applications and an adjournment of scheduled meetings in its own application.

The Board directed the Registrar to provide the requested documents to the CHCW but deferred the determination of intervenor status to the panel hearing the displacement applications.

The Board denied the request for an adjournment, noting it would not be granted without the consent of all parties.

The intervenor, SEIU, requested an adjournment of numerous displacement certification applications filed by the CAW-Canada, pending the conclusion of a process under the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC) constitution.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, reaffirming its consistent position that proceedings under the CLC constitution do not impact certification proceedings before the Board.

The Board emphasized its responsibility to process certification applications under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and refused to delay employees' entitlement to change representation due to an inter-union dispute.

The applicant appealed an inspector's order under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The appeal was filed 33 days after the order was made.

The Board dismissed the appeal because it was filed outside the 30-day statutory time limit, and the Act does not provide the Board with discretion to extend the time limit.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer regarding vacation pay.

The claimant alleged that a transition from an accrual-based to a current-year-based vacation accounting method resulted in a loss of earned vacation pay during the transitional year.

The Board found that the current-year method did not violate the Employment Standards Act, as the employer continued to provide vacation time and pay well in excess of the statutory minimums.

The Board concluded that the employer's policy provided a greater right or benefit than the Act, and set aside the Order to Pay.

The applicant filed an application for review of an employment standards officer's decision but indicated he had previously withdrawn his complaint to pursue a civil action.

The Board noted the withdrawal and terminated the matter.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance against the responding party employer under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties reached two Memorandums of Settlement resolving the matter, acknowledging the employer was bound by the collective agreement and had violated it.

The Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlements, including declarations of the violations and orders for the payment of damages and outstanding remittances.