OLRB 2000

The applicant filed an application for review seven days beyond the 45-day time limit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found it appropriate to grant an extension of time, rendering the application timely.

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

The responding employers filed a response indicating that an Ontario Superior Court of Justice order stayed all proceedings against them pursuant to the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act, and requested the application be dismissed.

The Board directed the applicant to file representations regarding the responding parties' request.

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

The responding employers requested that the matter be dismissed pursuant to an Ontario Superior Court of Justice order staying all proceedings against them under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Board found that the proceedings were stayed until December 31, 2000, by the court order, and accordingly adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Minister of Labour referred questions to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding whether the employer is a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act and whether the Minister can rescind a 'no board' notice.

The Board adjourned the proceedings to allow the parties to focus on bargaining their first collective agreement, noting that litigation would negatively impact negotiations.

The matter was rescheduled, and the parties were directed to meet and bargain in good faith.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging a breach of section 86 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party employer sought to have the application dismissed without a hearing on the basis that a parallel grievance had been filed.

The Board declined to dismiss the application, finding the issues were not identical to those in the potential arbitration.

The Board also exercised its discretion to allow the applicant to amend its application to include an allegation of a breach of section 70 of the Act, and directed the Registrar to set a hearing date.

The Labourers union and several individual employees challenged the validity of collective agreements entered into between the Carpenters union and five trim carpentry companies based on voluntary recognition.

The challenges were brought under section 66 of the Labour Relations Act, which requires the incumbent union to prove it was entitled to represent the employees at the time the agreements were signed.

The Board found that the Carpenters union's evidence of employee support, consisting of stale membership cards and a poorly attended ratification vote held six months prior to the agreements, was insufficient to meet the statutory onus.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the applications or order a representation vote, and rejected arguments that individual employees were denied natural justice.

The union applied for a related employer declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that MacIsaac Mining and Tunneling and MacRanald Enterprises Inc. were associated or related businesses under common control and direction.

The responding parties conceded common control but disputed that their activities were related, noting MacRanald's primary business was gaming while MacIsaac's was mine contracting.

The Board found that both entities engaged in construction work on a renovation project, satisfying the requirement for related activities.

The Board exercised its discretion to make the declaration, finding that MacRanald's performance of construction work as a general contractor eroded the union's bargaining rights.

The responding party informed the Board that the applicant failed to deliver filed documents and that the application lacked sufficient particulars.

The Board directed the applicant to deliver the documents and provide a detailed statement of material allegations regarding the alleged violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by August 16, 2000.

The responding party was relieved from filing a response until the applicant complied.

The applicants applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application under section 8.1(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties agreed that no statutory bar would be imposed on future certification applications under section 10(4) of the Act.

The Board heard two appeals under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act regarding orders issued by an inspector concerning firefighter staffing.

The City withdrew its appeal after the inspector issued a subsequent decision finding the City in compliance.

The Board dismissed the City's appeal.

The Association maintained its appeal of the inspector's subsequent decision and requested an interim order regarding minimum staffing levels.

The Board established a timetable for written submissions on the interim order request and scheduled hearing dates for the Association's appeal.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging 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 suspended for insubordination.

The applicant admitted to refusing a direct order from a supervisor to give up his forklift to another employee.

The union investigated and concluded there was no grievable issue, especially given the applicant had a prior suspension for insubordination just three months earlier.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding the union's actions were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, noting the union even successfully negotiated a one-day reduction in the penalty which the applicant rejected.

The applicant union filed a related employer application and referred a grievance to arbitration against the responding parties.

The responding parties failed to file a response or a notice of intent to defend.

The Board deemed the facts in the applications to be true and found that the responding parties were under common direction and control, performed work falling within the scope of the collective agreement, and failed to apply its terms.

The Board declared the responding parties to be a single employer bound by the collective agreement, found them liable for violations at specific projects, and referred the matter of damages to a hearing.

The applicant trade union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that the responding parties constitute one employer.

The responding parties and the intervenor failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

The Board proceeded in their absence and heard testimony from a union business agent.

Applying the principle from Delta Electric, the Board found that the applicant adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the responding parties performed associated or related business activities under common control and direction.

The Board declared the responding parties to be one employer and bound them to the applicable collective agreements.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

A representation vote was held, and more than 50 percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

The intervenor union requested that the application be dismissed for alleged non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Procedure, or alternatively, that the decision be postponed pending a contempt motion before the Superior Court and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's requests, finding no particulars for the non-compliance allegation and no valid reason to delay the certification under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for sheet metal workers and apprentices employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued two certificates pursuant to section 160(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

One certificate was issued for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector province-wide, and another for all other sectors in the specified geographic areas.

The applicant filed an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act for a review of a refusal to issue an order.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the applicant nor the responding employer appeared.

After waiting the standard thirty minutes, the Board convened the hearing and dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant employees filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The responding party union objected on the basis that the application was untimely under section 67(3)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because a lawful strike was ongoing.

Although a memorandum of agreement had been signed and most employees had returned to work, 20 employees remained off work pursuant to the strike on the application date.

The Board found that a strike was still in effect and that the statute does not require a complete cessation of work or disruption for a strike to continue.

The Board dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant employees filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The responding union objected on the basis that the application was untimely under section 67(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A vote was held and the ballot box was sealed.

Following a hearing, the Board orally dismissed the application as untimely and directed that the ballots be destroyed without being counted.

Written reasons were to follow.

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

Upon hearing submissions and on the agreement of the parties, the Board declared that the responding party was bound to the collective agreement and had violated its terms.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $7,000 to the applicant in two installments.