OLRB 2000

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, regarding a 1997 grievance over a job bidding process.

The Board directed the applicant to file a reply explaining the nearly three-year delay in bringing the application.

The applicant failed to provide an explanation or specify the relief sought.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Act to dismiss the application without a hearing, citing the unexplained extreme delay and the failure to plead facts establishing a prima facie case of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the union violated section 74.

The union advised it had not received a copy of the application and requested that processing be suspended and the scheduled labour relations officer's meeting be cancelled.

The Board directed the applicant to deliver the application in accordance with the Rules of Procedure within 5 days, which would allow the scheduled meeting to proceed.

The applicants filed an application alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing under Rule 46 for failing to plead a prima facie case.

The Board noted the application was sparse and directed the applicants' representative to respond to the union's pleadings before making a final determination on the request for dismissal.

The applicant union applied for certification of a bargaining unit consisting of attendant care workers, but excluding those in the outreach program.

The responding employer objected, arguing that the exclusion of outreach workers made the unit inappropriate.

The Board agreed with the employer, finding that the proposed unit would lead to undue fragmentation in a relatively small workplace.

The Board noted that the terms and conditions of employment, management structure, and work performed were essentially the same for both included and excluded workers.

The Board directed that the segregated ballots of the outreach workers be counted.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union after being discharged by her employer in 1997.

The Board had previously directed the applicant to explain her 21-month delay in contacting the union for assistance.

The applicant submitted that she had lost trust in the union and only contacted them after hearing of new management.

The Board found this explanation inadequate and concluded that the applicant's real focus was her WSIB claim, turning to the union only when other avenues failed.

The Board exercised its discretion to decline to inquire further and dismissed the application.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Pursuant to the submissions of the parties, the Board ordered that the representation vote be rescheduled to March 29, 2000.

The employer was directed to post copies of the decision adjacent to the Notice of Vote and of Hearing.

The applicant union sought to amend its application to include a letter dated January 12, 2000, and to add an allegation of a violation of section 70 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, in addition to its previous section 73 allegation.

The applicant also requested that the responding party be directed to provide particulars regarding a paragraph in its response.

The Board granted the requests, amending the application and directing the responding party to provide the requested particulars.

The applicant filed a medical note indicating she was ill on the date of the previously scheduled consultation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the Registrar to schedule a new date for the consultation in consultation with the parties.

The applicant union filed applications for certification, a related employer declaration, and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding parties.

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

The Board issued a consent order declaring the responding parties to be a single employer under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board also directed the counting of ballots for three agreed-upon eligible voters in the certification application and permitted the withdrawal of the section 96 complaint.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing date because she would be out of the country.

The responding employers opposed the request, noting the claim had been outstanding for two years and the date was set on agreement.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting the employers were not prejudiced as no monies were held in trust, but directed that the new date be chosen in consultation with the responding parties.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union four and a half years after a settlement agreement was reached regarding his discharge grievance.

The applicant claimed psychiatric difficulties prevented him from filing earlier.

The Board dismissed the application due to extreme delay, noting the prejudice to the union and employer, and observing that the applicant had managed to file a human rights complaint during the intervening period.

The applicant attempted to file an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an order to pay against the employer.

The application was improperly filed by facsimile.

The Board provided the correct forms and granted an additional 20 working days to file properly.

The applicant failed to respond within the extended time limit, and the Board terminated the matter.

The Board issued procedural directions in two combined applications.

The Board directed all parties to deliver copies of their pleadings to the other parties and extended the deadline for submissions on a motion to dismiss without a hearing.

The applicant's request for a Labour Relations Officer's report and flight information was denied as no such report exists and the flight information was irrelevant.

Two applications were filed under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act alleging violations of the union's duty of fair representation under section 74, both relating to the employer's warehouse operations in Sudbury.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consolidated the applications to avoid potentially inconsistent results.

The Board also set a timeline for the applicants to file a reply to the responding parties' request that the applications be dismissed without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie breach of the Act.

The applicant filed an application for review under the Employment Standards Act but failed to use the correct forms.

The applicant advised the Board that it did not receive the documents previously sent by the Registrar.

The Board directed the Registrar to resend the correct application form, Rules of Procedure, and Information Bulletin.

The applicant was granted 20 working days to comply with the rules and resubmit the application, failing which the matter would remain terminated.

The applicants submitted correspondence to the Board regarding a termination application.

The Board agreed with the responding party's counsel that the matters raised did not fall within the scope of the termination application, which had already been granted.

The Board also noted that the responding party's legal submissions appeared correct.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent ambulance paramedics and attendants employed by the responding party.

The parties signed a Memorandum of Agreement providing for a hearing and a subsequent representation vote, agreeing that ballots from a previous vote would not be counted.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken on August 10, 2000, for the agreed voting constituency, with the eligibility date to be determined at the upcoming hearing.

The applicant union applied to represent a group of ambulance workers.

A second representation vote was scheduled following a memorandum of settlement.

The intervenor union requested that the ballot box be sealed pending the outcome of future proceedings, arguing that counting the ballots would prejudice its position that it already held bargaining rights for the employees.

The Board dismissed the request and ordered the ballots to be counted, noting that there was no agreement to seal the box, counting the ballots might obviate the need for further hearings, and any prejudice to the intervenor was diminished because its arguments were primarily legal.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice application alleging the responding party failed to bargain in good faith.

The responding party failed to file a response within the required time.

The applicant requested that the Board make the requested orders without a hearing pursuant to Rule 41 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board decided to provide the responding party with an opportunity to file submissions regarding the applicant's request before making a final determination.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The intervenor union requested a postponement of the Board's decision pending the disposition of a contempt motion in Superior Court and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.

The Board refused to postpone the decision, noting that previous panels had already rejected similar arguments and that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires the Board to certify the applicant if more than 50 percent of the ballots cast in a representation vote are in its favour.

As the representation vote resulted in more than 50 percent of ballots cast in favour of the applicant, the Board issued the certificates.