OLRB 2000

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed 11 days after the 45-day statutory deadline.

The applicant requested an extension of time, explaining that it had requested the forms early but received them late, and the company president was away.

The Board found that the applicant had formed the intent to apply and taken reasonable steps before the deadline expired.

Exercising its discretion under section 68(4) of the Act, the Board extended the time for filing the application.

The applicant union filed an application against the responding party employer.

Based on the joint submissions of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that it did not disclose a violation of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board also ordered that the decision could not be referred to by either party in any subsequent litigation.

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

Having considered the joint submissions of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application as it did not disclose a violation of the Act.

The Board also amended the style of cause to reflect the correct name of the applicant.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision correcting an error in its previous decision dated June 9, 2000, which directed a representation vote.

The bargaining unit description was corrected to refer to 'all employees of the Corporation of the County of Grey in its home or homes for the aged in the Town of Markdale' instead of the Town of Durham.

The responding party was directed to post the correcting decision alongside the original decision.

The applicant union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

On consent of the parties, the Board ordered that the ballots cast in the representation vote be counted by teleconference.

The applicant also withdrew its unfair labour practice complaints.

The applicant, a union member, filed an application alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding a grievance over his layoff.

The union responded that the grievance was still being processed and the grievance procedures under the collective agreement had not been exhausted.

The Board agreed with the union, finding the application premature, and dismissed it, noting the applicant could file a fresh application if dissatisfied with the outcome of the grievance process.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed a few days late due to a miscommunication between the applicant and its counsel.

The Board granted the extension, noting the short delay and that the application was not frivolous.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer used non-union labour and failed to pay proper wages and remittances.

The responding party failed to file a response.

The Board deemed the facts in the application accepted and issued a default judgment, ordering the responding party to pay $27,575.38 in damages and $214.00 in costs.

The applicant, a former union official, was terminated by his employer for allegedly attempting to extort $150,000 in exchange for facilitating an undisruptive collective bargaining process.

The union reviewed video evidence provided by the employer and heard contradictory explanations from the applicant before deciding not to pursue his grievance.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's investigation was reasonable and its decision not to advance the grievance did not violate section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.

The applicant had given notice of resignation but was terminated prior to his departure date after leaving the plant for a short period without punching out.

The Board found that the employer had condoned similar behaviour by another employee and that the applicant's conduct did not amount to wilful misconduct or neglect of duty.

The application was allowed and the employer was ordered to pay two weeks' termination pay.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision dismissing his duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The complaint arose from the union's decision to settle two grievances related to the applicant's accommodation and administrative transfer.

The Board found that the union had considered relevant factors, including legal advice, the likelihood of success, and the impact on the bargaining unit, in deciding to settle.

The Board concluded that the applicant raised no new evidence or arguments that could not have been raised previously, and dismissed the request for reconsideration.

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

On the scheduled hearing date, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to settle the matter.

The responding party acknowledged it was bound by the collective agreement and had violated its terms.

The Board issued a consent order incorporating the settlement terms, including a declaration of the violations and an order for the responding party to pay $40,000 as an interim partial settlement.

The matter was rescheduled to determine any additional moneys owing.

The applicant appealed a decision made by an Occupational Health and Safety Inspector under section 61(1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The appeal was filed outside the 30-day time limit prescribed by the Act.

The applicant requested an extension of time, citing ongoing discussions with the Ministry of Labour.

The Board held that it has no discretion to extend the time for filing an appeal under section 61(1) and dismissed the application as untimely.

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

The responding trade union requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the applicant's submissions related solely to the conduct of an individual and made no allegations of union misconduct.

As section 74 only concerns the conduct of trade unions, the application was dismissed without prejudice.

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

The Board noted that the applicants' employment relations appeared to be governed by the Police Services Act, which would deprive the Board of jurisdiction.

The Board directed the responding party to provide its position on the jurisdictional issue within 10 days.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

Following a representation vote in which the applicant received majority support, the intervenor union objected to the issuance of a certificate, arguing it held bargaining rights for non-ICI construction labourers in Board Area No. 8.

The Board held that under sections 158 and 160 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, it could issue a certificate confined to the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector while the dispute over non-ICI bargaining rights was resolved.

The Board issued the ICI certificate and referred the remaining non-ICI issue to the Registrar for a hearing.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The application was delivered to the responding party on January 19, 2000, but was not filed with the Board until January 24, 2000.

Under Rule 14 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, the application had to be filed no later than two days after delivery.

Because the applicant failed to comply with this rule, the Board dismissed the application pursuant to Rule 15.

The applicant trade union requested reconsideration of a Board decision that granted leave to withdraw its application for certification and imposed a one-year bar on further applications under s. 7(10) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant argued that it had intended for the application to be dismissed without a bar, as a previous panel had found the application to be untimely for full-time employees.

The Board declined to reconsider, finding that its conclusion that the applicant was withdrawing its application was reasonable based on the applicant's correspondence stating it did not wish to pursue the matter further.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for electricians and electricians' 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 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 union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

Following an unfair labour practice complaint, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to a second vote, but the union reserved the right to challenge the eligibility of two employees hired after the application date on the basis that they were not employed in the 'representative period'.

The Board held that the term 'representative period' is a term of art referable to the application date.

Consequently, the two challenged employees were not entitled to vote in the second representation vote.