OLRB 2000

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

The applicant failed to pay the ordered amount to the Director in trust or provide an irrevocable letter of credit within the 45-day statutory time limit, as required by section 68(7) of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board dismissed the application for non-compliance.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging reprisals by the employer regarding his work assignment, a denied promotion, and an improper comment by his manager.

The employer raised preliminary objections that the application did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding no causal nexus between the work assignment and the previous OHSA complaint, noting the promotion issue was already proceeding to grievance arbitration, and declining to inquire into the manager's comment due to its trivial nature and scant prospect of success.

The applicant referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, relying on a companion application under sections 69 and 1(4) to bind the responding parties to the collective agreement.

Counsel for the responding parties requested an extension of time to file their Form A-87 and pay the filing fee until the related employer application is resolved.

The Board granted the extension, noting its usual practice is to adjourn the grievance pending the outcome of the related employer application.

The Minister of Labour referred the question of whether Therapeutic & Educational Living Centres Inc. (TELCI) is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA) to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

TELCI operates residential homes providing 24-hour care for individuals who are legally blind and have developmental or psychiatric disabilities.

The Board applied the statutory definition and established criteria, finding that TELCI provides essential observation, care, and treatment to its residents.

The Board advised the Minister that TELCI is a hospital under the HLDAA.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 21, 22, and/or 23 of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the Registrar to schedule the application to be heard together with a related application for certification.

The applicant brought an application for termination of the responding party union's bargaining rights.

A representation vote was conducted and the ballot box was sealed pending the union's allegations of employer initiation and intimidation under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

At the conclusion of evidence, the union withdrew its allegations and agreed to count the ballots.

The Board referred the application to the Manager of Field Services to arrange the counting of the ballots.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted an adjournment of a scheduled hearing on the agreement of the parties.

The agreement was based on the understanding that union counsel would provide a relevant medical certificate.

The hearing was rescheduled to continue on various dates in May and June 2000.

The union and the employer made a joint application for the Board's consent to the early termination of their collective agreement to facilitate a merger of bargaining units.

Ninety-seven employees objected, alleging the ratification vote was mishandled and designed to limit participation.

The Board granted consent to the early termination, noting that the statutory restriction on early termination is intended to protect employees' rights to change bargaining agents during the open period.

Because the objections related to the ratification process and the terms of the new agreement rather than representation rights, they did not warrant withholding consent.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision, arguing that the Board had substantially departed from its longstanding practice established in Bestview Holdings Limited regarding the demonstration of majority support in agreements expanding bargaining rights.

The Vice-Chair acknowledged the departure but maintained that the previous approach was either wrong or no longer correct given the Board's current approach to determining appropriate bargaining units.

Finding no persuasive reason to reconsider the prior decision, the Board denied the request.

The applicant union and responding employer entered into Minutes of Settlement prior to the hearing of a certification application and an unfair labour practice complaint.

Following a successful representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Board issued a certificate for a bargaining unit of construction labourers.

Pursuant to the settlement, the Board also granted the union leave to withdraw its unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant employer sought an extension of time to file an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

Although the required payment of monies into trust was late, the Board found that the applicant had consistently and promptly responded to the order and evidenced a clear intention to seek review.

The Board granted the extension of time, rendering the application timely, and referred the matter to the Registrar for processing.

The applicant employer failed to file a proper application pursuant to a prior Board decision.

The Board terminated the matter.

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

The responding party sought an extension of time to file its response, to which the applicant consented.

The Board granted the extension.

The employer applied for a declaration under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 that it was a non-construction employer and that the union no longer represented its construction employees.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application, arguing that the employer's status was res judicata from a 1982 decision, and alternatively, that the employer still employed construction workers on the application date.

The Board rejected the res judicata argument due to intervening statutory changes.

However, the Board found that the striking craft workers were construction employees and remained employed by the employer on the application date pursuant to section 1(2) of the Act.

The application was dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant filed an application under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act but initially served it on the wrong address for the responding party.

The responding party requested that the application not be processed due to non-compliance with the Board's rules requiring service prior to filing.

The Board exercised its discretion to relieve against the strict application of the rules and directed the responding party to file its response within 10 days.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

Neither the applicant nor the responding parties appeared at the scheduled hearing.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof and adduced no evidence, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and ordered the disbursement of funds held in trust to the employee and the Government of Ontario.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The employer had laid off the claimant and failed to pay termination pay when the lay-off ceased to be temporary.

The employer also withheld wages and deducted $25 for a customer complaint without written authorization.

The employer argued it withheld funds because the claimant refused to help collect an unpaid bill after her lay-off.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the employer had no legal right to withhold wages or termination pay, and ordered the funds held in trust to be paid to the claimant.

The union and intervenor requested that the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint be dismissed without a hearing or consultation due to delay and failure to make out a prima facie case.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Board declined to dismiss the application without a consultation.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be set down for a consultation, where the preliminary objection regarding delay could be raised.

The applicant sought a review of an employment standards officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.

On the morning of the scheduled hearing, the applicant left a voicemail stating his key witness was unavailable and he would not attend.

The applicant failed to appear at the hearing.

The responding parties requested the application be dismissed.

The Board found there was no proper request for an adjournment and dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant filed an application but failed to serve it on the responding party trade union and the employer as directed by the Board.

The Board ordered the applicant to serve the other parties and file proof of service by June 23, 2000, failing which the application would be dismissed.