OLRB 2000

The applicant union filed an application for certification to represent a group of unorganized employees.

A representation vote was scheduled.

Another union, CUPE, requested that the ballot box be sealed following the vote until a pending sale of business application (seeking to consolidate bargaining units due to amalgamation) was determined.

The Board declined to seal the ballot box, finding that the sale of business application should not interfere with or delay the certification process, and that representation rights issues could be determined under section 69 of the Act if appropriate.

The Board directed that the ballots be counted following the vote.

The parties in a dispute before the Ontario Labour Relations Board agreed to adjourn scheduled hearing dates and proposed bifurcating the proceedings.

The parties suggested presenting part of their evidence and seeking the Board's view before deciding whether to call further evidence on area/industry practice.

The Board expressed reluctance to issue a decision based on partial evidence and directed the parties to provide written submissions clarifying their agreement and rationale before the next scheduled hearing date.

The Board granted a request by counsel for Loblaws Supermarkets Limited for an extension of time until September 7, 2000, to file an intervention in the matter.

The applicant union requested an interim certificate pursuant to Section 9(2) of the Act in an application for certification.

The responding party opposed the request.

Given that a hearing was already scheduled for later in the month to consider remaining status and bargaining unit issues, the Board deferred the issue of the interim certificate to the panel hearing the matter.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the school board violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing to permit him to use its facilities to teach skipping classes.

The school board raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the individually named trustees, employees, and legal counsel were improperly named as responding parties.

The Board agreed, finding that the decision to exclude the applicant was made by the school board in its corporate capacity, and ordered the individuals deleted from the style of cause.

The Board also directed the parties to file written submissions on whether it should exercise its discretion to decline to hear the application on the basis that another forum was more appropriate.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the scheduled hearing of the matter on the agreement of the parties.

New hearing dates were set for November and December 2000.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay regarding unpaid commissions to the responding party employee.

The Board assessed the gross profit and equipment costs for a specific account to determine commission entitlement.

Finding that the equipment costs significantly exceeded the contractual threshold of 1.5 times sales, the Board concluded the employee was not entitled to any commission.

The application was granted, the Order to Pay was rescinded, and the funds held in trust were directed to be returned to the employer.

The union filed a grievance alleging the employer improperly laid off seven Toronto-based employees out of seniority order, arguing that less senior employees working in Sudbury (International territory) should have been laid off first.

The employer maintained that the northern employees were outside Local 50's jurisdiction and therefore not subject to bumping by Toronto members.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the grievance, finding that the collective agreement's seniority and layoff provisions must be read in conjunction with its jurisdictional clauses.

The Board concluded that Local 50's jurisdiction and the associated employment preferences do not extend into International territory, meaning Toronto members could not exercise seniority to bump northern employees.

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

The application was delivered to the responding party on June 26, 2000, but not filed with the Board until July 28, 2000.

As the application was filed more than five days after delivery, it failed to comply with Rule 14 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board terminated the application pursuant to Rule 15, without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a compliant application.

The applicant union filed applications under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding housekeeping employees whose services were contracted out to a service provider by a predecessor hospital.

The successor hospital raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the union's position in the current applications contradicted its stance during earlier hospital restructuring proceedings under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The union denied any contradiction and asserted it had consistently maintained that the housekeeping staff were employees of the hospital for labour relations purposes.

Finding material facts in dispute regarding the preliminary objection, the Board referred the matter to the Registrar to be dealt with by the panel assigned to hear the merits.

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

The applicant's counsel requested the adjournment on the day of the hearing because another lawyer with carriage of the file had accepted a retainer on another matter, and for unspecified personal and corporate reasons.

The claimant opposed the adjournment.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting it does not grant adjournments for the convenience of counsel or for unspecified reasons.

As the applicant called no evidence and made no submissions on the merits, the application was dismissed and the Order to Pay was affirmed.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 alleging a sale of business.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into minutes of settlement agreeing that a sale of business and intermingling of employees had occurred.

The Board issued a consent order directing a representation vote between the two responding trade unions to determine which would represent the employees in the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging her employment was terminated because she refused unsafe work.

The applicant had refused to print invoices, claiming that the stress caused by interpersonal conflicts with coworkers over the use of a shared printer endangered her health.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that stress from interpersonal conflict does not constitute a 'physical hazard' as required by section 43 of the Act.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the applicant did not genuinely believe her health and safety were in danger, but rather used the work refusal to force the employer to resolve the printer situation.

The applicant, a limousine driver, was terminated after refusing to help push a stalled utility truck.

He filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging he was fired in reprisal for a work refusal based on a genuine fear of injuring his back.

The Board found that the applicant had communicated his health and safety concern to the company president.

Because the employer failed to call the president to testify regarding the reasons for termination, it did not discharge its reverse onus under section 50(5) of the Act.

The Board allowed the application and ordered reinstatement with compensation.

The union, the employer, and various individual employees reached a global settlement to resolve numerous outstanding proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, including unfair labour practice complaints, grievances, and applications to terminate bargaining rights.

The dispute arose following the union's certification at a Windsor Wal-Mart store and a subsequent contested ratification vote for a first collective agreement.

Under the settlement, the union abandoned its bargaining rights, all parties withdrew their respective applications and complaints with prejudice, and mutual releases were executed.

The Board issued declarations confirming the successor union status, the abandonment of bargaining rights, and the withdrawal of all matters.

The applicant union advised the Board of its intention to file a section 96 complaint to obtain relief under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and requested that it be heard together with its application for certification.

The Board directed that unless the applicant files the section 96 complaint by April 14, 2000, the certification application will be determined based on the material filed without regard to the request for relief under section 11.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union approximately two and a half years after his employment was terminated.

The union and the employer requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The applicant attributed the delay to his former counsel's failure to act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was aware of his statutory rights and could not rely on the alleged shortcomings of counsel to excuse a 16-month period of complete inactivity.

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

The responding party requested that the Board either require the applicants to provide additional information or dismiss the complaints without a hearing.

The Board directed the responding party to respond to the allegations contained in the applicants' recent correspondence before determining whether the matters ought to proceed to a hearing.

The parties agreed to adjourn the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the hearing to October 25, 2000.

The applicant union sought to enforce minutes of settlement under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, after the responding employers stopped payment on the first settlement cheque and failed to file a response to the application.

Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board deemed the employers to have accepted the facts in the application and ordered them to pay the $17,000 settlement amount according to the agreed schedule.