OLRB 2000

The Board inadvertently issued a draft decision, which it revoked and replaced.

The applicant failed to address the responding party's jurisdictional challenge in his written submissions.

The Board directed the responding party to file submissions explaining its claim that the Board lacks jurisdiction, after which the Board will consider the request to dismiss the matter without a hearing.

The applicant employer filed a request for review of an Order to Pay 15 days after the 45-day statutory deadline under section 68(3) of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant paid the order amount into trust and cited inadvertence for the delay.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) to extend the time for filing, noting the delay was short and the money had been paid into trust.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a Board decision that declined to award default judgment for damages due to insufficient pleadings.

The union provided new material detailing the quantum of damages.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration because the application was not made in accordance with the rules, the new information could have been provided in the original application, and the short time frame did not allow for procedural fairness to the responding parties.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by allowing a part-time employee to transfer into a newly created position without posting it, and by refusing to file a grievance on her behalf.

The Board found that the union and employer were entitled to agree to the transfer to avoid a layoff, and that the union is not required to file a grievance simply because an employee requests it.

The Board concluded the application did not make out a prima facie case and directed the applicant to file written submissions explaining how the facts establish a violation, failing which the application would be terminated.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for 25 hours of unpaid wages.

The applicant claimed he was hired during an interview and spent the week reviewing manuals at home.

The employer maintained the applicant was only given manuals to review as part of the interview process and was not hired.

The Board found the applicant's evidence confusing and inconsistent, concluding that no employment relationship was established.

The application for review was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought to suspend an inspector's order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act pending an appeal.

The order required a construction supervisor to complete a specialty training module for underground hard rock mining.

The Ministry of Labour consented to suspending the portion of the order relating to shaft sinking but opposed suspending the portion relating to underground construction.

The Board applied the test for suspending an inspector's order and found the applicant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice.

The application for suspension was granted in part on consent, but otherwise dismissed.

The applicant union filed an application under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties settled the matters in dispute and filed a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consequently terminated the proceeding.

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

A hearing was scheduled for April 18, 2000.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

After waiting half an hour, the Board dismissed the application.

The Board ordered the wages held in trust to be disbursed to the employee and the administration fee to be retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural decision scheduling the continuation of a hearing for two referrals of grievances to arbitration.

The hearing was set to continue on October 12 and 19, 2000, and the Vice-Chair remained seized of the matter.

Two employees of the responding party sought reconsideration of the Board's earlier decisions regarding a representation vote and the subsequent certification of the applicant union.

The Board dismissed the requests, noting that the issues raised had already been addressed in previous fully reasoned decisions.

The Board also noted allegations that the responding party had laid off employees following the certification, advising the affected employees to seek legal advice regarding potential remedies.

The applicant filed an application under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that the Board lacked jurisdiction to consider his complaint regarding internal union affairs.

The union requested that the applicant be directed to file a fresh application so it could raise a timeliness defence.

The Board dismissed the application, noting it disclosed no cause of action under the Act as it concerned only internal union workings and not the applicant's representation in relation to an employer.

The applicant, a corporate director, requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing for an appeal under the Employment Standards Act.

Although the Ministry of Labour consented, the applicant failed to obtain consent from the numerous employee responding parties.

To spare the employees the inconvenience of traveling to Toronto only to have the adjournment granted, the Board granted the request in advance but warned the applicant that no further adjournments would be granted absent exceptional circumstances.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue a grievance relating to payment for relief work.

The union and the employer argued that the grievance was brought to the union's attention outside the 30-day time limit set out in the collective agreement.

The Board found that the applicant did not communicate his expectation for a grievance to be filed within the required timeframe.

The Board concluded that the union did not act in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner by refusing to file an untimely grievance.

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

The applicant, a director of a bankrupt restaurant, appealed an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay $1,906.78 in unpaid wages and vacation pay to eight employees.

At the hearing, the Ministry noted a calculation error, bringing the total to $2,578.93.

The applicant conceded liability for $859.96 in unpaid wages but testified that all vacation pay had been paid, producing some cancelled cheques and explaining that the remaining records were with a co-director.

The adjudicator found the applicant credible and concluded no vacation pay was owed, substituting an order to pay $859.96 for unpaid wages.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging a reprisal for staging a work refusal.

The responding party sought to dismiss the application without a hearing, arguing the suspension was justified for other reasons and the application lacked sufficient facts.

The applicant subsequently claimed he was terminated shortly after filing the complaint.

The Board declined to dismiss the application without a hearing, allowed the applicant to amend his pleadings to include the termination, and referred the matter to the Registrar.

The applicants filed applications alleging that the responding union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by failing to promptly resolve grievances regarding unpaid wages.

The Board found that the union had worked diligently on behalf of the applicants and that the complaints pertained primarily to the length of time taken to deal with the employer.

Concluding that the applications had no reasonable chance of success, the Board exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Act to dismiss the applications without a hearing.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and a related section 96 application.

The applicant requested that the hearing be held in Ottawa and sought production of original documents and other broad document production.

The Board directed that the first two days of the hearing take place in Toronto in accordance with its current practice, allowing the venue change request to be renewed later.

The Board ordered the responding party to make original filed documents available for inspection but declined the broader document production request at this time.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act and requested special authorization to proceed without paying the ordered amount into trust due to bankruptcy.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that section 68(7) of the Act is mandatory and the Board has no discretion to proceed without confirmation from the Director of Employment Standards that the requisite payment has been made.

The Board directed that the application would be deemed terminated if payment was not confirmed by the statutory deadline.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the responding party employer violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board dismissed the application because section 74 applies only to trade unions, not employers, and the applicant failed to provide any particulars to support a claim.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the applicant's ability to file a proper application.

The intervenor employer requested that the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint be dismissed without a hearing pursuant to Rule 46 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The intervenor alleged that the union had diligently represented the applicant, successfully grieving his termination and securing substantial damages at arbitration.

The Board noted that if these allegations were true, the applicant failed to make out a case of a section 74 violation.

Furthermore, the applicant had not adequately explained the excessive delay in filing the application regarding events over the past ten years.

The Board directed the applicant to respond to the intervenor's allegations and provide submissions on the delay before making a final determination on the motion to dismiss.