OLRB 2000

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The responding party employer disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but agreed the ballots should be counted.

The Board found the numerical difference between the parties' estimates was not significant and ordered a representation vote.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's objections based on an alleged breach of a court order and union constitution.

The Board also declined the employer and intervenor's request to delay the vote until after the seasonal lay-off ended.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing the vote should be delayed until the school year began.

The applicant, a former restaurant cook, sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying his claim for unpaid overtime.

Both parties failed to maintain reliable records of hours worked and wages paid, which were handled strictly in cash.

The Board found the applicant's claim of over 250 overtime hours exaggerated and the employer's claim of providing lieu time implausible.

The Board determined the applicant worked 120 overtime hours at a regular rate of $9.00 per hour, and ordered the employer to pay the $3.50 per hour shortfall plus vacation pay, totaling $436.80.

The appellant appealed a stop work order issued by a Ministry of Labour inspector prohibiting the use of a man basket on a forklift at a construction site.

The appellant argued that it had made the device safe and sought a variance under section 3 of O. Reg. 213/91.

The Board held that section 107 of the regulation provides a complete prohibition against using such a device on a construction site.

The Board concluded that section 3 cannot be used to vary a complete prohibition, as no modification can make a prohibited device equal to the safety of not using it at all.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant union sought a determination of the employment status of certain persons working at the Co-op, alleging the College was their true employer.

In a supplementary decision addressing issues overlooked in a prior ruling, the Board held it had no jurisdiction to determine the status of part-time employees, as they are excluded from the definition of 'employee' under the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act.

The Board also ruled that the customary order of proceeding would apply, requiring the applicant to proceed first.

The responding party applied for reconsideration of a Board decision, arguing that the Board incorrectly stated a potential witness was still employed by the responding party.

The Board accepted that it misinterpreted the witness's employment status but noted that the witness was still available to be called.

The Board concluded that the adverse inference drawn from the failure to call the witness remained valid.

The application for reconsideration was denied, except to correct the factual statement regarding the witness's employment.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union asserted that the application did not disclose a prima facie case and lacked specific allegations.

The Board found that the application did not comply with the Rules of Procedure requiring material facts.

The Board directed the applicant to file detailed submissions setting out the material facts, failing which the application would be deemed terminated.

The employer was struck as a responding party.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Board's decision to dismiss his application for review under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The original application was dismissed because the applicant failed to appear for the hearing after his request for an adjournment was denied.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant provided no new material evidence or grounds to justify reconsidering the final decision.

The responding party raised a preliminary objection challenging the applicant's standing to bring the application, arguing the applicant was not a party to the collective agreement and could not challenge its validity.

The Board declined to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis, noting the novel issues raised, and permitted the responding party to renew its motion before the hearing panel.

The parties requested an adjournment of the proceedings to attempt to negotiate a collective agreement in light of changed circumstances.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, adjourning the scheduled dates in September and October, while maintaining the December dates.

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

The responding union requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing under Rule 46 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, arguing that no prima facie case was pleaded.

The Board found the application sparse in material facts, noting the applicant appeared more dissatisfied with the collective agreement's pension provisions than the union's representation.

The Board directed the applicant to provide a written statement of material facts before deciding whether to dismiss the application or set it down for consultation.

The intervenor, Service Employees International Union, Local 204, requested reconsideration of a Board decision directing a representation vote.

The intervenor sought to terminate the certification application, hold the vote in abeyance, or seal the ballot box due to alleged technical breaches of the Rules.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision, noting that the alleged breaches could be raised at a hearing after the vote if necessary.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that the requisite 40% membership support was met.

Despite a dispute over the geographic description of the bargaining unit and allegations of unfair labour practices raised by the intervenor, the Board directed that a representation vote be held and declined to seal the ballot box or delay the vote.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant had been suspended and subsequently signed a release in exchange for eight weeks of termination pay, which was witnessed by a union representative.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing for failing to make out a prima facie case, noting that the applicant made no specific allegations regarding the union's conduct and that the Board does not have jurisdiction to inquire into general allegations of employer unfairness where a valid release has been signed.

The applicants failed to respond to a previous Board direction requiring them to indicate whether they wished to continue with the litigation.

After attempting to contact counsel for Trentfab Inc. without success, the Adjudicator deemed the applications abandoned.

The Director of Employment Standards was directed to release the monies held in trust, along with accrued interest, to the employee responding party.

The responding parties filed a request for reconsideration of a Board decision that declared them a single employer and bound them to a collective agreement.

The request was filed more than 20 days after the decision, making it untimely under Rule 96 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board also noted that even if it exercised its discretion to consider the request, it would be dismissed on its merits because the responding parties failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for not filing a response to the original application, where they could have raised their arguments.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision that established the voting constituency for a representation vote in an application for certification.

The employer argued that the geographic area chosen by the union for the non-ICI sectors was inappropriate and would cause prejudice.

The Board dismissed the request, reaffirming its established jurisprudence that a union may select the geographic area in which it seeks bargaining rights for non-ICI sectors, and is not required to include all areas where the employer has employees.

On its own motion, the Board amended the bargaining unit description to conform to its standard practice for 'white areas' not falling within a defined Board Area.

The applicant failed to comply with a prior Board direction to provide a telephone number to the assigned Labour Relations Officer by a specified date.

As a result of this non-compliance, the Board terminated the application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to remit required contributions under the collective agreement.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the responding party was deemed to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the responding party bound by the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $6,160.37 in damages for unpaid contributions and $214.00 in costs.

The applicant applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order for termination pay.

The applicant, a restaurant manager of ten years, claimed she was laid off, while the employer asserted she had quit.

The Board found that during a meeting, the employer signed a Record of Employment indicating a layoff and issued a cheque for severance, which was subsequently stopped.

The Board concluded that the applicant was laid off and ordered the employer to pay 8 weeks' pay in lieu of notice plus vacation pay.

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

Based on a memorandum of agreement between the parties, the Board issued consent declarations and orders.

The Board declared that the responding party was bound to the Carpenters Provincial Collective Agreement and had violated it by failing to subcontract the installation of overhead tracking systems at York Central Hospital to a bound employer.

The responding party was ordered to employ a union member for the duration of the work.

The hearing was adjourned to determine the quantum of damages.