OLRB 2001

The applicant union applied for certification to represent construction labourers employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and directed that a certificate issue.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief procedural direction permitting the responding party employer to file its response by 5:00 p.m. on the date of the decision.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act in favour of the claimant employee.

Prior to the hearing, the employee withdrew his claim against the applicant and requested that the funds held in trust be returned.

The Board directed the Director of Employment Standards to return the funds, including the statutory administration costs, to the applicant.

The applicant referred a construction industry grievance to the Board and requested an adjournment, which the responding party agreed to.

The applicant also requested that the Board deem the responding party to have accepted all facts in the application because it failed to file a Notice of Intent to Defend.

The Board granted the adjournment but declined to deem the facts accepted, noting that the responding party's agreement to adjourn and meet with an Officer could have reasonably led it to believe it was not in jeopardy of such a request.

The Labourers' International Union of North America applied for certification, and the Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 intervened and filed a section 96 application alleging unfair labour practices.

The Board considered whether to inquire into the voter eligibility of three individuals after the parties changed their positions following the representation vote.

Applying Martha's Garden Inc., the Board held it would inquire into their status because the parties merely adopted each other's previously articulated positions.

The Board also found the section 96 application disclosed a prima facie case of a conspiracy between the applicant union and the employer, directing it to proceed alongside the certification application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to post a required bond after repeated late payments of contributions.

The responding party failed to file a response or notice of intent to defend.

The Board deemed the facts in the application accepted, found the employer violated the collective agreement, and ordered the employer to post a bond of $16,280.35 and pay costs.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification to represent certain employees of St. Joseph's Health Care, London.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote to be held on April 25, 2001, and ordered that any ballots cast by individuals whose inclusion in the bargaining unit is disputed be segregated.

The applicant union filed a grievance against the responding party.

On agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, to be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made within that time.

The applicant trade union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor trade union.

The unions agreed that the application would be determined by a representation vote among the employees in the bargaining unit.

To expedite the vote, the Board proposed abridging the usual time limits for filing responses and interventions, directing the parties to advise of any objections by July 30, 2001.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant trade union filed an 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 majority of the Board found that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support to direct a representation vote and have the vote counted.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with segregated ballots for individuals whose positions were in dispute.

The dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act one week after the 45-day deadline.

The applicant explained that it had misread the Employment Standards Officer's letter regarding the deadline.

The Board noted the short delay, the applicant's prompt response and demonstrated intent to file on time, and the lack of prejudice to the responding parties.

Exercising its discretion under section 68(4) of the Act, the Board granted an extension of time to validate the late filing.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding employer disputed the union'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 majority of the Board found the numerical difference was not significant and ordered a representation vote to be held and counted.

The dissenting member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

The parties agreed to adjourn the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the matter adjourned to November 26, 28, and December 17, 2001, and referred it to the Registrar.

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

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the Director in trust to disburse the held funds according to the settlement, with $1,000 paid to the employee, $819.27 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

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

The Board granted the extension until January 7, 2002.

The Board considered whether a Memorandum of Agreement between Tyger Construction Inc. and the Labourers' International Union of North America (OPDC) constituted a valid collective agreement.

The Carpenters' Union had applied for certification, and the OPDC argued its agreement was a bar.

The Board determined that the Memorandum of Agreement was a valid collective agreement.

It found that the agreement incorporated by reference the terms and conditions of other collective agreements for non-ICI work, but did not make Tyger a party to those other separate collective agreements.

The Board concluded that the OPDC holds valid bargaining rights for construction labourers as defined in the agreement.

The Board noted that its previous decision directing a representation vote had not been posted in the workplace.

Pursuant to sections 111(2)(f) and (g) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board authorized a Labour Relations Officer to enter the premises to post the Application, Notice of Vote and Hearing, and the previous decision.

The applicant union and responding employers agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision correcting a previously issued certificate that incorrectly described the bargaining unit for journeymen electricians and apprentices employed by Lockhart Electric (Sarnia) Ltd. A revised certificate was issued and the parties were directed to return the earlier certificate for cancellation.