OLRB 2000

The responding party applied for reconsideration of a default decision finding it liable for a construction industry grievance.

The responding party claimed it did not file a Notice of Intent to Defend (Form A-87) because its fax machine received but failed to print the application.

The Board applied the four-part test from Weinmann Electric Limited and found the responding party failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the default, as the risk of equipment failure falls on the party maintaining it.

The Board also found the responding party's defence on the merits was weak.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed, and the matter was directed to a hearing to quantify damages.

The City of Brampton requested that two identical applications differing only in the named responding parties be merged into one file number.

The Board directed that the files be listed for hearing together and deferred the issue of consolidation to the panel assigned to hear the matters.

The applicant union wrote to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding statements allegedly made during settlement discussions and production orders made in a previous decision.

The Board noted that parties should not formally report on settlement discussions.

The Board also found the request for further relief regarding document production to be premature, as the deadline for exchange had not yet passed, and advised the parties to seek appropriate remedies after the deadline if necessary.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The application was delivered to the Ministry of Labour instead of the Ontario Labour Relations Board before the deadline, and was received by the Board two days late.

The Board exercised its discretion under s. 68(4) of the Act to extend the time for filing and referred the matter to the Registrar for processing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her complaint.

The applicant filed substantial materials, including an opinion letter from a legal agent and a list of facts she disagreed with.

The Board found that the request was primarily an attempt to reargue the case and did not meet the established criteria for reconsideration.

The Board reiterated its finding that the applicant lacked credibility and did not have a genuine, subjective concern for her health and safety when she refused to perform work.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

The Ministry of Labour requested reconsideration of a Board decision that extended the time for an applicant to file an application for review of an Order to Pay.

The Ministry argued the Order was properly served on February 1, 2000, to the address on the Corporation Profile Report, rather than February 23, 2000, when it was re-sent to a new address.

The Board declined to reconsider, noting that the applicant did not receive the Order in a timely manner because the original address was out of date, and the application was filed within 45 days of the Order being re-sent.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay but the application was received by the Board after the 45-day time limit expired.

The employer explained that the material was sent by registered mail on the deadline day.

The Board found the appeal was untimely but exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for applying for review.

The employer filed an appeal of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act more than 45 days after its issuance.

The employer requested an extension of time, citing a convoluted explanation that implicated the Employment Standards Officer.

The Board directed the Ministry of Labour to provide submissions on the extension request and required proof of payment into trust before proceeding.

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

The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing on the condition that the responding party produce specified documentation relating to a project.

The Board granted the adjournment sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant hospital, formed by the merger of two predecessor hospitals, applied under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transitions Act to determine the appropriate bargaining unit configuration.

The Board first determined that existing collective agreements did not constitute 'human resource plans' that would oust the application of the Act.

The Board then ordered that the stationary engineers represented by CUOE be included in a larger bargaining unit, finding that a separate craft unit was not effective or rational in the restructured organization.

Finally, the Board declined to combine the service and office/clerical bargaining units, concluding that there were no compelling reasons to disrupt the existing separate unit structure, which had not caused operational difficulties.

The applicant filed an application under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties reached an agreement resolving the claim, and no funds were held by the Director.

The Board terminated the matter.

The applicant filed an application alleging that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act when it allegedly pressured her into signing a settlement agreement regarding her discharge.

The union moved to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the settlement agreement was reasonable and that the applicant failed to plead facts demonstrating coercion, duress, or intimidation by the union representative.

The application was dismissed without a consultation.

At a consultation concerning a work assignment application under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the responding party EPSCA requested an adjournment because it and its counsel had not been provided with notice.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding the notice deficient and noting that the failure to provide adequate notice prevented EPSCA from participating effectively.

The Registrar was directed to reschedule the consultation.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a municipal-wide bargaining unit of employees of a cleaning contractor in the City of London.

The responding party employer argued for a site-specific bargaining unit covering only ten specific locations, citing concerns about flexibility in bidding on future contracts.

The Board applied its established test for determining appropriate bargaining units, noting a strong aversion to fragmentation and a presumption that broader, municipal-wide units are generally appropriate unless they cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board found the employer's proposed unit inappropriate, particularly as it would have excluded a single employee at an eleventh site, and certified the union for the municipal-wide unit.

The applicant employer failed to appear at the scheduled hearing to review an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

On motion by counsel for the Ministry of Labour, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and affirmed the order, directing the payout of trust monies to the employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Board received post-vote submissions from both the applicant union and the responding employer.

Both parties agreed that two specific ballots should not be counted, consistent with a prior Board ruling.

The Board directed the vote coordinator to appoint a Labour Relations Officer to count the remaining four ballots.

Spud Erectors Inc. applied for reconsideration of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision, arguing it had not received the prior decision directing compliance.

The Board found that, due to the absence of normal business records indicating delivery by the Board's courier, Spud was not served with the decision.

Citing the basic principle of natural justice that a party must have adequate notice of a decision affecting its rights, the Board granted the reconsideration and revoked the prior decision insofar as it applied to Spud Erectors Inc.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union for withdrawing two suspension grievances without notice and failing to proceed with his termination grievance.

The applicant had been terminated after the employer cancelled his medical leave based on a brief medical report, despite the applicant being scheduled for further surgery.

The union refused to proceed to arbitration without further medical information but failed to explain what was needed or assist the applicant in obtaining it.

The Board found the union acted arbitrarily and in bad faith, violating section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered the union and employer to proceed to arbitration on all three grievances, with the union required to pay for independent counsel to represent the applicant.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice complaint seeking a new representation vote under section 11(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the union violated section 76 by distributing a leaflet that disclosed a settlement offer and referenced plant closures.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union's disclosure of the settlement offer to employees did not constitute coercion or intimidation.

Furthermore, the Board held that the union's statements regarding plant closures, when viewed in context, were not threats but rather reassurances to employees.

Concluding that the employer's allegations did not make out an arguable case for a violation of the Act, the Board dismissed the complaint and certified the union based on the results of the representation vote.

The applicant sought to suspend an Inspector's order under section 61(7) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act pending an appeal.

The Ministry of Labour and the responding union did not object to the suspension.

The Board found it appropriate to suspend the order pending the appeal.