OLRB 2000

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement regarding applications for a successor union, certification, and a duty of fair representation complaint.

The Board previously determined that the Canadian Union of Retail and Transportation Workers (CURTW) was a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of CURTW, the Board issued a certificate to CURTW for the bargaining unit at the responding party's distribution centre.

The other applications were withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

Following representation votes where more than 50 percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the intervenor union requested that the Board postpone its decision pending the disposition of a contempt motion and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.

The Board declined to postpone the decision, finding no valid reason to delay and noting that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires the Board to certify the applicant when more than 50 percent of ballots are in favour.

Certificates were issued to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining units.

The applicants sought production of documents and particulars from the responding party and the intervenor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding party and intervenor to file written representations regarding the request, and set a timeline for the applicants to reply.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her unfair labour practice complaint against her union.

The original decision found that the union's conduct in seeking to enforce strike solidarity was 'social pressure' rather than unlawful intimidation or coercion under section 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant argued that the strike may have been unlawful and that her Charter rights were violated.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the Charter does not apply to private parties like trade unions and that the applicant had not previously raised the issue of an unlawful strike.

The applicant union filed a related employer application and a construction industry grievance against the responding parties.

Prior to the hearing, the parties filed a Memorandum of Agreement resolving all issues in dispute.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board accepted the agreement and issued declarations that the responding parties are bound by the applicable collective agreements, subject to a waiver period, and ordered compliance with the terms of the settlement.

The proceedings were terminated.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The Board had previously directed a representation vote.

However, the responding employer filed a response enclosing a Memorandum of Agreement with another union, Local 183, indicating it may have an interest in the application.

The Board cancelled the scheduled representation vote and directed that notice of the application be given to Local 183, allowing them two days to file a response.

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

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, claiming inadequate notice after a disputed adjournment request.

The Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to appear and discharge its onus of proof.

The Board also noted a calculation error in the Order to Pay and directed the parties to file submissions regarding the disposition of the funds held in trust.

The applicant union requested that the Board strike the pleadings of the responding parties and determine the case based on the facts stated in the application, alleging partial default in document production by one respondent and noting the lack of participation by others.

The Board directed the responding parties to file submissions addressing the extent of the default and their interest in proceeding, given that one respondent never filed a response, another's mail was returned, and the third's counsel had removed himself from the record.

The applicant union appealed a Ministry of Labour inspector's field visit report regarding an alleged work refusal by correctional officers over increased night shift patrols.

The union also requested a suspension of the inspector's order under section 61(7) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board dismissed the request for suspension, finding that because the inspector made no order, the remedial relief sought could not properly be obtained through a suspension request.

The main appeal was referred to the Registrar to be listed for hearing.

The applicant, the sole director of a company, sought a review of an Order to Pay, arguing that two former directors who sold him the business remained 'defacto directors' and should be jointly and severally liable for the order, as well as exempt from Employment Standards Act entitlements.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that the evidence did not support the claim that the former directors continued to act as directors after their resignation and the sale of the business.

The Order to Pay was affirmed.

The employer requested that its section 96(7) application regarding non-compliance with minutes of settlement be heard as a discrete matter at the beginning of a previously scheduled hearing for an unfair labour practice complaint.

The union agreed to hearing the matters together but requested an adjournment to prepare.

The Board directed that both matters be heard together on the originally scheduled date, noting that the minutes of settlement related to the unfair labour practice complaint and the participants were the same.

The applicants filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 alleging breaches of sections 72, 74, and 75.

After over two years without contact from the applicants, the Board directed them to indicate their intentions within 10 days, failing which the application would be deemed abandoned and dismissed.

The applicant union requested an adjournment of a scheduled representation vote in an application for certification.

The responding party claimed it did not employ any of the individuals in question on the date the application was filed, which the applicant contested.

The Board granted a brief delay of the vote to allow the applicant to investigate the claim and ordered the parties to provide written submissions regarding the timing of the employment relationship.

The applicants filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to file a grievance.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of the collective agreement regarding Scheduled Paid Absence (SPA) during a three-day temporary layoff.

The union maintained that SPA could only be rescheduled in weekly periods, while the applicant argued it applied to temporary layoffs of any length.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's interpretation of the collective agreement was plausible and reasonable, and its refusal to grieve was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicants brought an application alleging that the responding union and its representatives breached their duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding parties argued the application should be dismissed for failing to set out a prima facie case, asserting that section 74 does not apply to internal union matters such as the amalgamation of locals.

The Board directed the applicants to file written submissions on whether the application ought to be dismissed.

The applicants requested a further extension of time to file submissions until September 19, 2000.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and directed that the responding party would have two weeks from that date to file any responding submissions.

The applicant filed an Application for Review under the Employment Standards Act, complaining that he had not received the money ordered by an Employment Standards Officer.

The Board revoked a previously granted extension and terminated the application, noting that an Application for Review is only for challenging an officer's decision, not for enforcing payment.

The applicant was directed to contact the Provincial Specialist regarding nonpayment.

The responding union requested reconsideration of a June 5, 2000 endorsement, stating it had not received a copy of the application.

Although Board records indicated the application was faxed on June 2, 2000, the Board accepted that it was not received.

The Board provided another copy of the application and extended the time for the responding party to file its response to 10 days after receipt of the decision.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union violated sections 74 and 75 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to support his grievance regarding classification and wages.

The union requested that both applications be dismissed without a hearing.

The Board dismissed the section 75 application, finding that the facts pleaded did not relate to a hiring hall situation.

However, the Board declined to dismiss the section 74 application, finding that a prima facie case was established and there was no excessive delay in filing.

The Board also ruled that the employer could not be named as a responding party in such applications and amended the style of cause to name the employer as an intervenor.