OLRB 2000

The applicant union sought representation votes for employees of three related employers, both individually and as a combined unit.

The Board amended its previous decision to clarify the voting procedure.

Employees would receive two ballots: one for the combined unit and one for their specific employer.

The ballot boxes would be sealed pending the parties' agreement on whether the employers should be treated as a single employer under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, or as separate entities.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its applications for certification and unfair labour practice.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications and imposed a one-year bar on any new application for certification by the applicant or its affiliated bargaining agents for the same bargaining unit.

The Board also directed the destruction of ballots cast in the representation vote.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and imposed a one-year bar on any further applications for certification by the applicant or its affiliated bargaining agents for the same bargaining unit.

The Board also directed the destruction of the ballots cast in the representation vote.

The applicant, I.B.E.W. Construction Council of Ontario, requested to withdraw its application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The Board imposed a one-year bar on further applications for certification by the applicant or its affiliated bargaining agents for the same bargaining unit.

The Board also directed the destruction of ballots cast in the representation vote after 30 days.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The Board imposed a one-year bar on any further applications for certification by the applicant or its affiliated bargaining agents for the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Registrar was directed to destroy the ballots cast in the representation vote after 30 days.

The applicant union filed an application alleging the responding party college bypassed the union and dealt directly with a grievor regarding wage calculations following a successful arbitration award.

The college requested the Board dismiss the application.

The Board noted that while the facts arguably disclose a violation of the Colleges Collective Bargaining Act, the union retains control of the arbitration procedure and could return to the arbitrator for a remedy.

The Board directed the parties to file written submissions on whether the application should be adjourned sine die until the arbitration process is exhausted.

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's requests to dismiss the application based on alleged unfair labour practices, breach of a court order, and technical breaches of the Rules of Procedure.

However, because the intervenor raised a timeliness objection under section 7(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board ordered that the ballot box be sealed following the representation vote until the timeliness issue is resolved.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had established sufficient membership support for a representation vote.

The responding party disputed the bargaining unit estimate and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The intervenor raised several objections, including that the application was untimely under section 7(4).

The Board directed a representation vote but ordered the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the timeliness and section 8.1 issues.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing no vote should take place until the section 8.1 issues are resolved.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding party 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.

The intervenor alleged unfair labour practices and argued the application was untimely under section 7(4).

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

However, due to the intervenor's timeliness objection, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed until further order or agreement of the parties.

A dissenting Board member would have sealed the ballot box or delayed the vote until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

The responding party's section 8.1 objection was dismissed as it did not dispute the bargaining unit description or numbers.

The intervenor raised several objections, including untimeliness under section 7(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held but ordered the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the timeliness issue.

The applicant requested a two-week extension of time to file an application for review.

Noting that the required monies had been paid in trust to the Director of Employment Standards, the Board granted the extension to June 12, 2000.

The applicant employer sought to suspend an Occupational Health and Safety inspector's orders pending an appeal on the merits.

The Board applied the three-part test for suspension and found that suspending the order would diminish worker safety, the applicant failed to articulate material prejudice, and there was no strong prima facie case for a successful appeal.

The application for suspension was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought the suspension of an Occupational Health and Safety inspector's order pending an appeal.

The order required the employer to ensure that a double picker was loaded safely and product was not stacked above the backrest.

Applying the three-part test for suspending an inspector's order, the Board found that suspending the order would diminish worker safety, the employer failed to articulate any material negative effect of compliance, and the employer did not present a strong prima facie case for a successful appeal.

The request for a suspension was dismissed.

The applicant sought the suspension of an occupational health and safety inspector's order requiring a professional engineer's report confirming that guards installed around gas heaters were not likely to endanger workers.

The Board applied the three-part test for suspending an order pending appeal.

Finding that suspending the order could potentially diminish workplace safety, that compliance would not prejudice the applicant, and that deference should be accorded to the inspector's decision, the Board dismissed the request for a suspension.

The responding party requested that the application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 be dismissed on the basis that it is bound by section 3(h) of the Act.

The Board directed the applicant to respond to the request by a specified date.

The applicant union sought production of various documents from the responding party Labourers' union and from the trustees of a benefit fund.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the Labourers to produce the text of resolutions passed at specific membership meetings, as well as contracts and documents relating to scaffolding equipment.

However, the Board declined to order production from the trustees of the benefit fund, noting that it lacks statutory authority under s. 111(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act to require pre-hearing document production from a non-party.

The applicant was given the option to add the benefit fund as a party or to summons the documents at a hearing.

The applicants filed an application alleging the responding trade union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Counsel for the union advised that some material filed with the application was not delivered to it.

The Board directed the applicants to deliver the missing documents and grievances to the union within 10 days, failing which the application may be dismissed.

In an application alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the employer advised that it had not received certain required documents.

The Board directed the applicants to deliver the specified materials to the employer's counsel within 10 days, after which the employer would have 10 days to file an intervention.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, after the matter had been the subject of full hearings before the Board.

Having regard to the submissions of the parties, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Two intervenors raised issues regarding the applicant's trade union status, bargaining rights, and the appropriateness of the bargaining unit.

The responding party failed to file a response.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support and directed a representation vote for the proposed bargaining unit.

Given the outstanding issues raised by the intervenors, the Board ordered that all ballots be segregated and the ballot box sealed pending further direction.