OLRB 2000

The applicants sought a new representation vote, alleging the employer committed unfair labour practices by denying union leave to SEIU members to campaign for OSSTF while granting leave to CUPE members, and allowing CUPE to campaign on school time.

The Board dismissed the request for a new vote on a preliminary motion, finding that even if the allegations were true, the conduct amounted to a loss of opportunity to influence voters rather than conduct that would overwhelm employees' ability to express their true wishes in a secret ballot.

The applicant filed a termination application and the union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

The parties reached an agreement to resolve the outstanding issues.

The Board ordered that the previous representation vote be declared a nullity and the ballots destroyed.

A fresh representation vote was ordered to determine if the employees wish to continue to be represented by the union.

The Board also set out the consequences of the vote depending on the outcome, as agreed by the parties.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order for overtime and vacation pay.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The responding parties moved for dismissal based on abandonment.

The Board, satisfied that the applicant had notice, dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear.

The hearing of these matters was scheduled to continue on September 7 and 8, 2000.

The evening before the hearing, the Board was advised that one of the applicants had a medical emergency involving his child.

Shortly before the hearing commenced, the responding party, Terry Kelly, advised he had been in an accident and could not attend.

The Board adjourned the hearing dates and directed Mr. Kelly to provide a letter explaining his inability to attend.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The original complaint was dismissed due to a delay of over ten years and a failure to plead a prima facie case of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The Board found that the reconsideration request did not raise any new evidence or important issues of Board policy, but was merely an attempt to relitigate the matter.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed his application in its entirety.

The Board found that the request was an attempt to relitigate the matter and that the applicant failed to raise new evidence or important issues of Board policy.

The applicant also made groundless allegations regarding the integrity of the Board and raised issues outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The Board issued a procedural decision regarding the scheduling of two related matters involving the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 353, the Labourers' International Union of North America, Local 506, and Ellis-Don Construction Ltd. The Board directed that the matters be heard concurrently at a hearing/consultation and declined a request to delay the proceedings pending the outcome of another Board file, as the parties disputed the similarity of the issues and no submissions were provided to establish the similarity.

The Board issued a procedural direction regarding two applications arising from the same construction project: an OHSA application and a jurisdictional dispute under the LRA.

Noting that jurisdictional disputes are typically scheduled as consultations while OHSA applications proceed by way of hearing, the Vice-Chair directed the parties to file submissions on how the two matters should be scheduled.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the hearing of these matters, scheduled for August 29, 2000, on the agreement of the parties.

The hearing was rescheduled to October and November 2000.

The applicants, former employees of Hanmer Bus Lines, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against their union, CUPE.

They alleged the union acted arbitrarily or in bad faith by failing to take numerous grievances to arbitration, failing to pursue termination pay after the employer closed its business, ending strike pay, and other internal union matters.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had gone above and beyond its duty by paying strike pay for 22 months even after the employer ceased operations, and that it reasonably held grievances in abeyance pending a lead case and the subsequent closure of the business.

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

The matter had been adjourned on consent pending the determination of a related jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 99 of the Act.

Following the resolution of that complaint, the Board directed the parties to advise whether they wished to have the grievance listed for hearing, failing which the matter would be dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of the Board's decision to grant intervenor status to the Carpenters Employer Bargaining Agency (EBA).

The Board denied the request, finding that the EBA has a real and substantial interest in the matter and that the Board would benefit from its participation.

The applicants filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act challenging the parent union's decision to transfer the geographic jurisdiction of the Kapuskasing area from Local 491 to Local 607.

The Board considered whether to hold a formal hearing or a consultation to resolve the dispute.

Noting the need for expedition in construction industry restructuring disputes under the 'Bill 80 provisions', the Board exercised its discretion under section 110 of the Act and its Rules to set the matter down for a consultation rather than a full oral hearing.

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

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding party violated the collective agreement and ordering the payment of $28,259.10 in damages for unpaid remittances and employer contributions.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to order termination pay.

The applicant, a tourism consultant, discovered her employer was receiving more funds for her position than she was paid.

She wrote a letter to the employer's directors alleging financial impropriety and copied it to external parties, including a competitor.

The Board found this conduct constituted wilful misconduct under s. 57(10) of the Employment Standards Act, as it was a deliberate attempt to embarrass the employer and harm its business relationships.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that allowed the withdrawal of his application.

The withdrawal was based on a settlement agreement where the union would obtain $2,900 from the employer (intervenor) for the applicant.

The applicant did not receive the funds.

The Board granted the reconsideration, revoked the withdrawal, and directed the Registrar to process the matter in the normal course.

The applicant, Service Employees International Union, Local 220, applied for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application because the submitted membership evidence was for the international union rather than the local union.

The Board found that the applicant failed to comply with subsection 7(13) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as evidence of membership in an international union is not generally accepted as evidence of membership in a local.

The applicant union, Local 220, applied for certification.

The membership evidence submitted showed applications for membership in the international union, rather than the specific local union.

The Board found that evidence of membership in an international union is not generally accepted as evidence of membership in a local.

As the applicant failed to comply with subsection 7(13) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the application for certification was dismissed.

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

The union responded that it had assisted the applicant in settling his outstanding grievances against his employer.

The Board directed the applicant to file a reply explaining why the application should proceed in light of the union's assertions, failing which the application would be deemed terminated.

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

The intervenor union requested that the Board postpone issuing a certificate pending the disposition of a contempt motion in Superior Court and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.

The Board declined to postpone the issuance of the certificate, finding no valid reason to delay the final determination and noting that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires certification where more than 50 percent of ballots are cast in favour of the applicant.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.