OLRB 2000

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

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

By consent, the Board granted leave for the application to be withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

As a preliminary issue, the Board had to determine whether the applicant, which had recently changed its name to Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A., Local 183, had status as a trade union.

The Board found that the applicant was the same organization as Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 183, and had simply changed its name.

The Board concluded that the applicant maintained its status as a trade union under sections 1(1) and 126 of the Act.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging irregularities in a second representation vote, including inadequate notice to eligible employees, intimidation by union representatives near the polling station, and improper inducement through the purchase of breakfast for employees.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found that adequate notice was provided via a posted Notice of Vote, the mere presence of union representatives near the polling station without evidence of coercive statements did not constitute intimidation, and the purchase of breakfast amounted to acceptable salesmanship rather than improper inducement.

The Board dismissed the employer's complaint and directed that a certificate issue to the union.

The applicant union applied for certification and won a representation vote.

The responding party withdrew its objections regarding the applicant's trade union status and a related union bar.

Based on the filed materials, the Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A certificate was issued to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union regarding advice and representation during a hospital restructuring that resulted in the closure of her chronic care unit.

The union requested the complaint be dismissed without a hearing under Rule 46.

The Board reviewed the facts as alleged by the applicant and found that while the union's initial advice appeared reasonable, the applicant lacked access to necessary documents to fully articulate her claim regarding a subsequent arbitration award.

The Board ordered the union to provide relevant seniority lists and directed the applicant to file further written submissions detailing her position before deciding whether to schedule a consultation.

The applicant, a probationary employee, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for failing to grieve his dismissal.

The union and the employer argued that under the collective agreement, probationary employees have no right to grieve a dismissal.

The Board dismissed the application at the consultation stage for failing to make out a prima facie case, finding that the union acted in compliance with the Act by deciding not to file a grievance that had no possibility of success.

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

The parties reached a settlement wherein the applicant agreed to pay $7,500 directly to the responding employee, and the applicant withdrew its application for review.

The Board directed the Director to release the $9,281.74 held in trust back to the applicant, subject to any request for a hearing by the Ministry of Labour.

The applicant and the responding party, Dusan Poupa, reached a settlement.

The Ministry of Labour, which was not a party to the settlement, objected to it within the 15-day period previously set by the Board.

Consequently, the Board referred the matter to the Registrar to be listed for a one-day hearing.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the responding trade union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant sought $3,047.26 as his share of a grievance settlement.

The trade union asserted that the applicant was not covered by the grievance and requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing pursuant to Rule 46, arguing no prima facie case was established.

The Board directed the applicant to provide submissions in response to the trade union's assertions before determining how to proceed.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a violation of section 74 (duty of fair representation).

However, the applicant explicitly stated that her complaint was not against the union, but rather against the employer and a named supervisor.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that it did not make out a prima facie case because section 74 is directed solely at a union's representation of its members, not at employer conduct.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Based on Minutes of Settlement, the Board ordered a new representation vote for a constituency of stationary engineers and helpers employed by the responding party.

The vote was scheduled for February 4, 2000, and the Board set out voter eligibility and posting requirements.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party argued that the employees who cast ballots were not performing construction work and were covered by an existing collective agreement with SEIU Local 210.

The Board found that the employees were erecting a permanent steel stud wall, which constitutes construction work, not maintenance.

The Board also determined that the SEIU collective agreement only covered maintenance work and therefore did not bar the application.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered the issuance of certificates for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector and all other sectors in the relevant geographic area.

The International union applied for reconsideration of a Board decision that found Local 393W breached section 74 of the Act.

The International sought to reconsider the denial of its intervenor status and the Board's acceptance of Local 393W's admission without a hearing.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision to deny the International standing, noting that amicus curiae status is rarely granted.

Consequently, lacking standing, the International had no status to seek reconsideration of the section 74 finding.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by subcontracting work to a non-union entity.

The responding employer and the intervenor union brought a motion to adjourn the grievance pending the determination of a jurisdictional dispute over the work assignment.

The Board granted the motion, finding that its longstanding jurisprudence of deferring subcontracting grievances to jurisdictional disputes was not altered by recent case law, and adjourned the grievance pending the filing of a jurisdictional dispute application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The parties subsequently filed Minutes of Settlement with the Board.

Based on the settlement, the Board dismissed the application for certification under paragraph 7 of subsection 8.1(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and ordered the destruction of the ballots cast in the representation vote.

The applicant, a union member with a physical disability, alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to file a grievance after he was laid off.

The applicant and the union had an informal arrangement to accommodate his disability by referring him to supervisory roles.

The employer laid off the applicant because the carpenters he was supervising were also laid off, and he could not perform the physical duties of a working foreman.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith in assessing the situation as a legitimate layoff and refusing to file a grievance.

The applicant sought a review of an employment standards officer's order to pay in favour of the responding party.

After the Board previously determined that the responding party was an employee and was terminated contrary to the Employment Standards Act, a hearing was held to determine the quantum of damages.

The applicant failed to appear.

The Board ordered the release of the funds held in trust to the responding party, along with pre-judgment interest.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification for a bargaining unit currently represented by the intervenor union.

The intervenor objected that the application was untimely because a recent Superior Court of Justice decision had quashed an interest arbitration award pertaining to the collective agreement and remitted the matter to a new board of arbitration.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board deferred ordering a representation vote and directed the parties to provide detailed submissions on the timeliness of the application and the legal effect of the court's decision.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The intervenor union objected, arguing the application was untimely because a recent Superior Court of Justice decision quashed an interest arbitration award pertaining to the collective agreement and remitted it to a new board of arbitration.

The Board directed the parties to provide detailed submissions on the timeliness of the application and the legal effect of the Court's decision before deciding whether to order a representation vote.

The applicant union delivered an application for certification to the responding party but failed to file it with the Board within the required two-day period under Rule 14 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

As a result of the late filing, the Board dismissed the application in accordance with Rule 15.