OLRB 2000

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing because her union representative was no longer employed by the union and she needed time to find a new one.

The responding party opposed the request.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting the applicant had no control over the loss of her representative, the limited availability of representatives in Terrace Bay, and the volume of documents involved.

The applicant's request to move the hearing closer to Terrace Bay was denied as contrary to the Board's policy of holding such hearings in Toronto.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union after it refused to assist her further following a failed test.

The union had previously taken her lay-off grievance to arbitration and negotiated a settlement, signed by the applicant, which provided she would be placed in another position if she passed a test.

After failing the test, the applicant claimed an 'anxiety testing disability' and sought further union assistance.

The Board dismissed the application without a consultation, finding no facts to suggest the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, as it was bound by the settlement agreement.

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

The applicant claimed the complaint dealt with seniority and recall rights based on the employer's Human Resources Policy, relying on subsections 57(19) and 57(20) of the Act.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing under Rule 46, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The Board held that while the Act allows an employee to elect between statutory termination pay and independent recall rights, it does not provide a mechanism to enforce those recall rights, which must be pursued in another forum.

The applicant was directed by the Board to provide submissions concerning the Board's jurisdiction over the matter, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant failed to file the required submissions within the established time limits.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application against the respondent union.

The intervenor railway company submitted a letter asserting that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacks jurisdiction over the matter.

The Board noted that the employer may be correct and directed the applicant to provide submissions on the jurisdictional issue by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant requested that the Board order the responding party to provide copies of its constitution, by-laws, and a list of approved law firms.

The applicant later informed the Board that the information had not been received and sought an order directing production.

The Board directed the Registrar to send the applicant's letter to the responding party and gave the responding party until January 19, 2000, to file any objections to the request.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for the following day.

The request was submitted by fax less than 24 hours before the hearing, without the consent of the responding parties, and without a compelling reason.

The Board denied the request, noting that it would be impossible to communicate the decision to the employee responding party before the hearing commenced.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision two days after the deadline, having mistakenly delivered it to the Officer's office in Newmarket instead of the Board in Toronto.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(14) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for filing, noting the applicant's attempt to comply, the timely payment of monies in trust, and the lack of prejudice to any other party.

The applicants filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the union alleging breaches of sections 74 and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union requested that the application be dismissed for want of a prima facie case and for untimeliness, as the allegations arose between one and four years prior to filing.

The Board directed the applicants to provide written submissions explaining the delay before considering the union's preliminary motions.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision one day after the time limit expired.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for filing, noting the delay was trivial, the required trust monies were paid on time, and there was no prejudice to the responding parties.

The matter was referred to the Manager of Field Services for processing.

The applicant employee requested a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an order.

The application was filed nine days late due to a misunderstanding.

The Ministry of Labour did not object to an extension, and the employer made no submissions.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for filing the application.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay termination pay, arguing that the employee had quit rather than being terminated.

The employee did not appear at the hearing.

The Board found that the employer's own Record of Employment indicated the employee was terminated, and the employer took no steps to correct it or respond to the employee's letter asserting he was dismissed.

The Board concluded the employee was terminated and upheld the Order to Pay.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging that her employer terminated her employment after she requested a transfer to a different work area due to back problems.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing pursuant to Rule 46.

The Board found that the applicant did not allege she was exercising a right under the Act or that the employer's actions were a reprisal for such an exercise.

Even assuming the facts in the application were true, they did not disclose a violation of the Act.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The Board dismissed the application because the accompanying petition was deficient.

The petition consisted of a list of names and signatures with no heading, and a statement of dissatisfaction added after the signatures were collected.

The Board found this did not demonstrate that 40% or more of the employees desired to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

Following a previous decision dated December 9, 1999, the Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the parties' submissions and fixed the amounts owed under paragraph 3(3) of that decision.

The Board ordered the amounts set out in Schedule A to be paid and declared that no further claims regarding that paragraph would be entertained.

The Board received a request for reconsideration of a decision dated April 5, 2000.

The request was filed on July 14, 2000.

Under Rule 96 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, a request for reconsideration must be filed within 20 days of the decision.

As the request was filed well outside the prescribed time period, it was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a consultation, the parties agreed to adjourn the matter sine die for up to one year.

Just before the expiry of the one-year period, the applicant requested a further one-year adjournment.

The intervenor employer opposed the request.

The Board found that all substantive issues had been addressed and the remaining issues were speculative and related to events from long ago.

The Board declined to extend the adjournment and dismissed the application.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite receiving notice.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The Ministry of Labour requested that two separate employment standards applications against the same employer be heard together.

The Board denied the request, finding that the issues in dispute—one concerning a prorated bonus payment upon resignation and the other concerning a severance pay exclusion under section 58(6)(e) of the Employment Standards Act—were quite distinct and provided no basis for consolidation.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification for a bargaining unit of part-time employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found the applicant established sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's requests to dismiss the application based on alleged breaches of a court order, union constitution, and Board rules.

A majority of the Board also declined to delay the vote until the start of the school year, ordering the vote to proceed.