OLRB 2000

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, cancelled the scheduled representation vote and hearing dates, and directed the responding party employer to post copies of the decision.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The responding party requested an order requiring the applicant to clarify and abbreviate the application, and sought an extension of time to file its response.

The Board found the application sufficiently clear to outline the reprisal allegations and declined to order clarification.

The Board granted the responding party an extension of time to file its response.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a November 1998 decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against the union due to delay.

The applicant explained he mistakenly believed a two-year time limit applied, similar to his understanding of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board declined to reconsider the decision, noting that delay has a serious impact on labour relations and the applicant provided no compelling reason to depart from the Board's practice of declining to inquire into complaints made more than one year after the events.

The responding party requested reconsideration of a default decision issued after it failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate.

The responding party claimed its president was on vacation and missed a pre-hearing meeting notice.

The Board dismissed the request, noting the responding party had received the initial application and Board notice before the vacation, which clearly stated the consequences of failing to respond.

The applicant union sought production of documents from the responding parties in an application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following a telephone conference, the Board issued directions requiring the Community Care Access Centre and the service providers to produce various internal documents, written instructions, standard forms, and schedules to service agreements, subject to certain confidentiality conditions.

The Board also set out the preliminary matters to be dealt with at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding its handling of grievances related to sexual harassment allegations in 1997.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the union's duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 only arose on January 1, 1998, with the coming into force of the Education Quality Improvement Act, 1997, and does not apply retroactively to events occurring prior to that date.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding party employer stated that it had contracted out the services supplied by the employees in the proposed bargaining unit, and that they would no longer be employed by the responding party effective April 7, 2000.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions responding to these issues prior to the Board deciding whether to order a representation vote.

The union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

The parties reached a full and final settlement, agreeing to a second representation vote, a $5,000 payment by the employer to the union for employee benefits, and various access and posting conditions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the Minutes of Settlement and directed the holding of the second representation vote.

The union filed an unfair labour practice application alleging that the employer terminated several employees for their support of the union during an organizing campaign, and violated the statutory freeze provisions by altering the Christmas shutdown and bonus.

The Board found that the employer's stated reasons for terminating the employees were pretextual and that the terminations were motivated by anti-union animus.

The Board also found that the employer's unilateral changes to the Christmas shutdown and bonus violated the statutory freeze.

The Board ordered the reinstatement of the terminated employees with full compensation and issued declaratory relief regarding the statutory freeze violations.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application regarding an Order to Pay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and ordered the Director to disburse the monies held in trust to the responding party, with the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

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

The responding party, Maksteele Workers Association Committee, contended it was not a trade union but a voluntary organization of employees, and thus not subject to the duty.

The Board noted that the policies and procedures document filed by the applicant did not appear to be a collective agreement and did not establish the Association as a trade union.

The Board directed the applicant to provide submissions on the Association's status before deciding whether to dismiss the application or proceed to a consultation.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an Order to Pay against his former employer.

The applicant alleged he was terminated or constructively dismissed following a workplace dispute.

The employer maintained that the applicant was only suspended and subsequently quit when he refused to return to work.

The Board found that the employer never intended to terminate the applicant's employment and that the applicant had quit.

The Board also rejected the constructive dismissal claim.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification but failed to file membership evidence for at least 40 per cent of the bargaining unit.

The responding employer requested that the Board exercise its discretion under section 111(2)(k) of the Labour Relations Act to impose a one-year bar on further applications.

The Board dismissed the certification application and directed the destruction of the ballots pursuant to section 8.1(5), paragraph 7.

The Board declined to impose a discretionary bar, noting that section 10(4) specifically exempts dismissals under section 8.1(5) from the mandatory one-year bar, and finding no evidence of an abuse of process.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an order to pay under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board previously directed the Ministry of Labour to provide information regarding the investigation.

The Ministry provided the information, and the Board directed the applicant's counsel to review it, advise on the application of section 82.3(2) of the Act, and indicate whether a further oral hearing is sought.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervenor requested a postponement of the disposition pending a contempt motion in Superior Court and raiding charges before the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board denied the postponement request, noting it had dealt with similar requests in other decisions.

Based on the representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay for eight weeks of termination pay issued in favour of the employee.

The employee did not attend the hearing.

Based on the uncontested testimony of a managerial employee, the Board found that the employee had telephoned the employer, requested a Record of Employment, and stated she was quitting.

The Board concluded the employee was not terminated, rescinded the Order to Pay, and ordered the funds held in trust returned to the employer.

The employer appealed orders issued by a Ministry of Labour inspector under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, arguing its tree nursery business was a farming operation exempt from the Act.

The Ministry contended the operation fell under the definition of 'logging' as it involved the practice of silviculture.

The Board found that the employer's business of cultivating seedlings primarily for the forestry and logging industry constituted silviculture.

Consequently, the operation was deemed an industrial establishment covered by the Act, and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant requested to withdraw one grievance application and adjourn five others pending the outcome of a related file before another panel of the Board.

The Board granted the withdrawal with leave and adjourned the remaining files, directing the applicant to advise the Board within 30 days of the related decision whether it intends to proceed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated June 5, 2000.

The Board amended paragraph 2 of that decision to correctly refer to Board File No. 3973-99-G instead of 3793-99-G.

The applicant filed a termination application seeking to decertify the union as the bargaining agent for the employees of Triac Industries Inc. Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represented the employees.

The collective agreement was declared to be of no force or effect pursuant to subsection 63(18) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and a one-year bar on certification applications by the union was imposed.