OLRB 2001

The applicant trade unions filed unfair labour practice complaints against the Premier of Ontario and the Minister of Labour, alleging that the respondents unlawfully threatened legislative changes to the construction industry's provincial bargaining scheme (Bill 69) to pressure the unions into abandoning certain bargaining rights.

The unions also argued that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint due to a reasonable apprehension of bias, as the Board's adjudicators are appointed by the government.

The Board declined to find that its adjudicators were precluded from hearing the case.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the complaints, holding that the Labour Relations Act does not bind the Crown or its Ministers acting in their legislative or governmental capacities.

Furthermore, the Board found that a government's expression of intent to legislate does not constitute intimidation, coercion, or unlawful interference under the Act.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed well after the 45-day statutory time limit.

The Board invited the applicant to provide reasons for the delay or why an extension should be granted, but received no reply.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time period and terminated the application.

The applicant applied to review the decision of an Employment Standards Officer not to issue an order.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

The responding parties moved to dismiss the application.

The Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The employee filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying his claim for termination pay on the basis of wilful misconduct.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the employee nor the employer attended.

As the employee bore the onus of establishing a basis for the claim, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application due to his failure to attend.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Board's decision dated August 16, 2001.

The Board noted its broad discretion to reconsider decisions under section 21.2(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, but emphasized that it requires good reasons to do so, such as an obvious error, new evidence, or important policy issues.

The Board found that the applicant's request was merely an attempt to reargue the case and did not meet the criteria for reconsideration.

The application for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed well beyond the 45-day statutory time limit.

After the applicant failed to respond to the Board's request for submissions on why an extension of time should be granted, the Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 68(4) to extend the time limit.

The application was terminated.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The parties executed Minutes of Settlement agreeing to revoke a prior certificate issued to an intervenor employee association, declaring their collective agreement invalid under section 53 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and directing a representation vote.

The Board issued a consent order incorporating the settlement terms, revoked the prior certificate, and directed a representation vote.

The applicant applied for certification to represent volunteer firefighters employed by the responding party.

The Board directed the applicant to file documents demonstrating its status as a trade union.

Finding that the applicant established sufficient membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote for the proposed bargaining unit of volunteer firefighters, with segregated ballots for disputed managerial positions.

The applicant employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued an order reflecting the settlement, directing the disbursement of $672.46 held in trust to the employee, retaining a $100 administration fee, and ordering the employer to pay an additional $127.54 directly to the employee.

The applicant employer filed an application alleging that employees at its Overlea Boulevard plant were engaging in an unlawful strike, supported by the responding unions.

The Board noted that the application was currently a mere allegation and reviewed the comprehensive statutory framework prohibiting unlawful strikes under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Given the urgency of unlawful strike allegations, the Board scheduled an expedited hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of refrigeration and compressor operators, stationary engineers, and helpers employed by the University of Windsor.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application for review of an employment standards officer's decision that no monies were owing.

The application was filed outside the 45-day statutory time limit.

The Registrar advised the applicant of the late filing and provided an opportunity to request an extension of time.

As no request for an extension was made within the specified period, the Board terminated the application.

The applicant union (OPSEU) applied for certification to represent paramedics.

The responding party (City/Region) claimed it was not the employer, asserting the Town of Ancaster was.

An intervenor union (CUPE) claimed the application was untimely because its existing collective agreement with the City/Region covered the paramedics.

The Board applied the York Condominium factors and found the City/Region was the employer at the time of the application, given its control over hiring, remuneration, and intention to create an employment relationship.

The Board also found that the scope clause of the CUPE collective agreement did not automatically include the new paramedic classifications, as the parties had not agreed to their inclusion, and therefore the clause did not bar OPSEU's certification application.

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

After receiving the correct form, the applicant submitted it two days late.

The Board granted an extension of time to file the application, noting the minimal delay, lack of prejudice to the responding parties, and the applicant's clear intention to seek review.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees 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 directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties concluded Minutes of Settlement, and the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the matter accordingly.

The employer applied for review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay termination pay to the employee.

The employer had changed the employee's status from full-time to part-time and purported to cancel her previously approved unpaid leave of absence during the notice period.

The employee refused the changes and left the workplace, claiming constructive dismissal.

The Board found that the employer violated the Employment Standards Act by altering the employee's terms and conditions of employment during the notice period.

The application was dismissed and the termination pay was ordered to be paid to the employee.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of clerical, secretarial, and office employees at the University of Windsor.

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

A certificate was ordered to issue and previously set hearing dates were cancelled.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay in the amount of $1,477,025.12.

The Board previously directed the applicant to pay the amount into trust or provide an irrevocable letter of credit by August 16, 2001, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant failed to do so.

Consequently, the application for review was dismissed, despite the Board noting that on the face of the documents, it seemed unlikely the applicant was in fact an employer liable in respect of the Order.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty per cent of the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees to determine whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor.