OLRB 2000

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent office and clerical workers of the responding party.

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 Board found that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote and directed that ballots of individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

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 future applications for certification by the applicant or its affiliated bargaining agents for the same bargaining unit.

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

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board noted that the responding party failed to file a Notice of Intent to Defend and directed it to do so within five days if the matter is relisted.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees of the responding party.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and proposed a different bargaining unit, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

An intervenor claimed trade union status and existing bargaining rights, alleging the application was untimely.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken but ordered the ballot box sealed pending the resolution of the disputes regarding the bargaining unit description, the intervenor's status, and the timeliness of the application.

The applicants applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that a conciliation officer had been appointed by the Minister of Labour prior to the application.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application as untimely in accordance with section 67(2) of the Act.

The applicant union filed a grievance referral against the responding employer.

On consent of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

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

The Board found that the applicant had not yet established its status as a trade union and directed it to file the necessary documents.

However, finding that the applicant had established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit, the Board ordered a representation vote to be taken.

The Board also directed that ballots cast by individuals in disputed office and clerical positions be segregated.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

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

The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that it appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with segregated ballots for disputed positions.

The applicant employers filed an application under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union and its officials called, authorized, and threatened an unlawful strike.

The Board noted that the application was currently a mere allegation without a hearing.

After reviewing the comprehensive statutory scheme prohibiting unlawful strikes and the available remedies, the Board scheduled the matter for an expedited hearing and directed the parties to file replies and notify affected employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board rescinded its previous decision dated January 10, 2000, which had declared that CAW Local 461 acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor.

The Board stated that the previous decision was issued in error.

The applicant employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision affirming an Employment Standards Officer's order that the responding party employee was entitled to notice of termination.

The applicant alleged forgery, perjury, and non-disclosure by the employee.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue its case and had not provided any new information that was unavailable at the time of the original hearing.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior Board decision that dismissed her duty of fair representation complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board reviewed the principles for reconsideration, noting that it generally requires new evidence that could not have been previously obtained or the raising of significant policy issues.

Finding that the applicant merely reiterated her previous submissions without providing new material information or facts showing arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, the Board dismissed the application for reconsideration.

The applicant employer sought an extension of time to apply for a review of two Orders to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act, approximately 20 months after the deadline.

The employer had previously failed to pay the required funds into trust, instead submitting a lawyer's affidavit, which led to the initial dismissal of its applications and a subsequent unsuccessful judicial review.

The Adjudicator/Referee denied the request for an extension, finding no denial of natural justice and concluding that the employer's obstinate refusal to comply with the statutory requirement to pay monies into trust caused an unacceptable delay that severely prejudiced the affected employees.

The applicant employers filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging irregularities in a second representation vote ordered by the Board, including failure to notify employees, intimidation, and purchasing breakfast for eligible employees.

The responding union filed a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case under Rule 46.

The Board directed the Registrar to list the matter for a one-day hearing to hear submissions on the union's preliminary motion to dismiss.

The applicant union applied for certification.

At the commencement of the hearing, the responding employer requested an adjournment because certain employees had written to the Board requesting the representation vote be overturned under s. 11(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but had not received notice of the hearing.

The union objected on the basis that the employees' submissions were untimely and not delivered to the other parties.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that regardless of the merit of the union's arguments, the employees should be given an opportunity to respond.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

Neither the applicant nor the responding employer appeared at the scheduled hearing.

Upon the request of counsel for the Ministry of Labour, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to advance his claim and the lack of evidence to support it.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a breach of the union's duty of fair representation under section 74.

A consultation was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear.

The responding party union and the intervenor employer attended and requested that the matter be dismissed.

In the absence of any indication that the applicant intended to pursue the matter, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought a common employer declaration and filed construction industry grievances against the responding parties.

The responding parties requested reconsideration of a prior Board order for production of documents, arguing it was too broad.

The Board declined to vary the production order but granted a confidentiality order, directing that pricing information could be redacted and documents must be used exclusively for the litigation.

The Board also established a procedure for the responding parties' motion to dismiss parts of the case on a prima facie basis.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Board declared that the responding party no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.