OLRB 2000

The applicants, directors of a bankrupt employer, sought a review of Orders to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act for unpaid wages.

The Ministry of Labour had paid compensation to most claimants under the Employee Wage Protection Program and was subrogated to their claims.

On consent of the parties, the adjudicator ordered that the Orders to Pay be reduced to $30,000, for which the three directors are jointly and severally liable.

The applicant sought to appeal an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act by submitting a photocopy of a receipt marked 'Appeal Payment'.

The Board notified the applicant that the application was not filed on the correct form and did not comply with the Rules of Procedure.

The applicant failed to respond or submit the proper forms.

The Board dismissed the application, noting that procedural fairness requires parties to know the basis of the dispute, and directed the Director to pay the monies held in trust to the employee.

The applicant sought to review a refusal to issue an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Registrar returned the application because it was not filed on the correct form and did not comply with the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant was given 20 working days to re-submit the application but failed to respond.

The Board dismissed the application, noting that the obligation to file in the proper form is not merely a technical requirement, as procedural fairness requires opposing parties to know the basis of the dispute.

The applicant sought to appeal an Order to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act by submitting a photocopy of a receipt with the word 'APPEAL' written on it.

The Board returned the application, instructing the applicant to file the proper form and provide reasons for the application as required by the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The applicant failed to respond within the allotted time.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application and directed the Director of Employment Standards to pay the monies held in trust to the employee.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration.

The responding party employer failed to file a timely response, resulting in a default decision finding a violation of the collective agreement.

The employer subsequently requested reconsideration of the default decision.

The Board established a four-factor test for reconsidering default decisions under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act.

Applying the factors, the Board found that while the employer's explanation for the default was unreasonable, it had raised a substantial defence to the grievance and there was minimal prejudice to the union.

The Board granted the reconsideration request and directed the employer to file its response.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133.

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

The Board issued a consent order incorporating the settlement, declaring the responding company bound to the union's standard collective agreement in the concrete and drain portion of the residential sector.

The grievance was withdrawn and the application terminated.

The Associations requested the opportunity to make submissions on how the Board should proceed with outstanding matters in two files involving the City of Brantford and the City of Hamilton.

The Board invited the parties to file their submissions by August 11, 2000, and noted that a Labour Relations Specialist would be in touch with them.

The applicants requested that the matter proceed with evidence presented to an officer and transcribed before argument to the Board.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined this request, instead directing the parties to exchange submissions and documents, file replies, and meet with a Labour Relations Specialist to agree on facts and procedure.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for the employees of the responding party.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast were in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.

The applicant filed an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 alleging that the responding parties were engaging in an unlawful strike.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural decision scheduling a meeting with a Labour Relations Specialist, followed by a hearing if necessary, and directed the responding parties to serve and file any responses by a specified deadline.

The employer requested reconsideration of a decision regarding the quantum of damages under the Employment Standards Act.

The adjudicator had corrected an oral decision based on a Divisional Court ruling that overturned the case law relied upon by the employer.

The employer argued it was not given an opportunity to make submissions on the Divisional Court decision and that the decision did not apply.

The adjudicator found that even if he had jurisdiction, he would not have reconsidered the decision.

However, he concluded he had no jurisdiction to reconsider the decision, as the power of reconsideration belongs to the Board under its Rules, not to an Adjudicator/Referee operating under the pre-amendment regime of the Act.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding employers failed to file a response.

The applicant requested that the Board deem the facts accepted under Rule 41 and grant the relief requested, or alternatively adjourn the hearing.

The Board deemed the facts accepted and prohibited the responding parties from filing materials without leave.

Noting that notices to employees had not been posted, the Board extended the terminal date, appointed a Labour Relations Officer to post the notices, and adjourned the scheduled hearing.

The employer filed an application for review under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing, but the employer failed to attend.

After waiting more than the usual half-hour, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent iron workers employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the responding party raised non-specific concerns about the vote.

The Board found no substantive allegations and issued a final decision without a hearing.

Pursuant to section 160(1) of the Act, the Board issued certificates to the applicant for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector in Ontario, and for all other sectors in the District of Thunder Bay.

The applicant union referred three grievances to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party failed to make required deductions and contributions to various benefit plans.

The responding party did not attend the hearing.

Based on the evidence of the union's business representative, the Board found the responding party was bound by the Carpenters Provincial ICI Collective Agreement and had failed to remit the required contributions.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $24,544.12 in damages, plus $5,282.00 in costs and fees, for a total of $29,826.12.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for March 16, 2000, citing a serious medical condition resulting from an accident.

The Board denied the request because the applicant provided no medical documentation, waited until 10 days before the hearing to make the request, and failed to copy the other parties.

The Board noted it would reconsider if the applicant provided a medical certificate or obtained consent from the responding parties.

The Carpenters and Labourers unions disputed the assignment of work involving the dismantling and removal of seats from the North Grandstand of Exhibition Stadium prior to its demolition.

The employer had assigned the work to a composite crew of approximately 60% labourers and 40% carpenters.

The Labourers claimed exclusive jurisdiction based on a collective agreement appendix covering maintenance and repair of seating in the Stadium.

The Board found that the appendix applied to an operating venue, not demolition, and upheld the employer's assignment to a composite crew as reasonable and consistent with the practice in the rest of Exhibition Place.

The responding party requested a change to the scheduled hearing dates.

To assess the time required for the hearing, the Board directed the responding party to file a statement of facts detailing the dates and times worked and monies paid or deducted for the relevant period.

The Board also directed the responding party to clarify which grievance was being addressed in one of the files, as the response appeared to relate to a settled grievance.

The applicant was directed to respond to the scheduling request and advise of any substantial factual differences.

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

The responding party employer failed to file a notice of intent to defend and did not appear at the hearing.

The Board deemed the facts asserted in the application as true and found the employer bound by the collective agreement.

The Board determined that the employer breached the agreement by remitting employee deductions and employer contributions late.

The employer was ordered to pay $552.96 in damages for late payment interest.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to remit employee deductions and employer contributions to the union's benefit trust funds on time.

The responding party did not file a notice of intent to defend and did not appear at the hearing.

The Board deemed the facts asserted in the application as true, found the employer bound by the collective agreement, and ordered the employer to pay $3,113.58 in damages for late remittances.