OLRB 2000

The responding party requested an extension of time to file a response to the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the extension until December 13, 2000.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the applications sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the applications will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 175/663 requested a stay of a representation vote scheduled for October 13, 2000, claiming its rights may be affected by the application.

The Board declined to stay the vote but noted the ballot box had been ordered sealed.

The Board directed that a copy of the application and response be forwarded to the union's counsel and stated that any issues arising could be dealt with subsequently.

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 intervenor argued that a Superior Court injunction prevented the vote or required the ballot box to be sealed.

The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to determine the effect of the injunction.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

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

The employer and two employees appealed an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay regarding unpaid overtime, public holiday pay, and eating periods.

In this procedural decision, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the Ministry of Labour an extension to provide the basis for its wage calculations.

The Board also directed the employer to provide material facts and detailed arguments supporting its preliminary objections regarding jurisdiction, timeliness, and alleged breaches of natural justice.

The applicant requested to withdraw the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the matter was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the consent adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by pressuring her into a settlement.

The Board held a hearing on preliminary issues, including whether the application disclosed a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union's conduct in explaining the consequences of proceeding to arbitration and pressuring the applicant to settle was appropriate in labour relations.

As the application did not disclose a prima facie case, it was dismissed.

The applicants, various unions including the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, the Ontario Nurses' Association, and the Office and Professional Employees International Union, sought representation rights for employees at the Dryden Long Term Care Facility.

Pursuant to an agreement of the parties and subsection 69(8) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that representation votes be taken for a Service Unit and a Nursing Unit.

The Board established the voting constituencies, the date of the votes, and the choices to be presented on the ballots for each unit.

The Board directed that an application for reconsideration brought by Giovanni Naccarato be listed for hearing alongside related files.

The Board noted that setting the matter down for hearing did not constitute a ruling on the merits of the applicant's right to bring the application, and that an expert's report filed would likely require the expert to be called as a witness.

The applicant trade union was directed to file a response and granted the right to seek an adjournment to prepare evidence.

The employer sought an application for review of an Order to Pay but failed to file the correct forms with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board notified the employer and provided the necessary forms, but the employer did not respond for nearly five months.

The Board issued a decision stating that unless a proper application is filed by March 17, 2000, the matter will be terminated and the monies held in trust will be disbursed.

The applicant trade union applied 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 Board found that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate but could not be absolutely certain that 40 per cent or more of the individuals in the unit were members of the union.

The Board ordered a representation vote and directed that the ballot box be sealed pending resolution of the dispute over the inclusion of certain employee classifications.

The applicant brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

On consent of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within one year.

The applicant, Tower Light Ltd., filed an application naming several employees and the Ministry of Labour as responding parties.

Following a previous Board decision and having received no submissions from the responding employees by the specified date, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief procedural decision directing that the issues raised in a letter from Mr. Ruffo be dealt with at the upcoming hearing scheduled for July 24, 2000.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon unit of employees.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of Operation Springboard in Toronto.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The union applied for certification and filed an unfair labour practice complaint.

Following a representation vote, the union withdrew its status challenges, which would have resulted in the dismissal of the certification application but for the unfair labour practice complaint.

The complaint hearing was deferred because the employer had not received notice.

The union requested that a new panel hear the complaint as soon as possible, while the employer argued the current panel was seized.

The Vice-Chair ruled he was not seized of the complaint as he had not commenced hearing it, and referred the matter to the Registrar to be scheduled for hearing before a new panel at the earliest opportunity.