OLRB 2001

The applicant sought to withdraw its application against the responding party.

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely as it was filed during the open period of the collective agreement.

Despite some discrepancies in the evidence of employee wishes, the Board was satisfied that not less than forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's workplace.

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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The union requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case under Rule 46 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board directed the applicant to file written submissions responding to the facts and arguments raised by the union and the employer before making a decision on the motion to dismiss.

The applicant employer brought an application under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a determination that its PSU Case Manager exercised managerial functions and was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The responding union did not dispute the application.

The Board determined that the individual was not an employee for the purposes of the Act pursuant to section 1(3)(b).

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 employer took no position on holding a representation vote, provided it was without prejudice to its right to dispute the legal effect of a majority.

The Board ordered a representation vote to determine whether the employees in the voting constituency wish to be represented by the applicant or the predecessor union.

The applicant requested an adjournment of her application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, and relieved the applicant from filing written submissions previously directed, unless the matter proceeds within that time.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the matter to January 22, 2002.

The applicants alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 75 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to enforce the referral to work provisions of various collective agreements.

Following a consultation, the Board found that the union failed to take effective steps to ensure employers honoured their obligations, which likely deprived the applicants of work opportunities.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct was arbitrary and breached section 75, remitting the matter to the parties to resolve outstanding issues.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The responding party argued the application was untimely under section 67(2) because a conciliation officer had been appointed prior to the application's filing, and alternatively sought dismissal under section 63(16).

The Board found the application appeared untimely on the face of the pleadings and declined to order a representation vote.

The applicant was granted a brief period to file submissions on why the application should not be dismissed for untimeliness.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, but not more than 50% of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and noted the potential effect of section 10(3) of the Act on any subsequent application filed within one year.

The applicant union filed a section 96 complaint against the responding party employer.

Following settlement discussions and representations from the parties, the Board ordered the responding party to pay $15,000 in trust to the applicant, to be distributed equally among six named individuals.

The Board noted that this payment constituted a complete and final settlement of the complaint, and the union acknowledged it had no further complaints under the collective agreement.

The complaint was terminated.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the union violated section 74.

The union asserted that the application failed to disclose a prima facie violation and requested that the Board dismiss it without a hearing.

After providing the applicant an opportunity to respond, the Board declined to dismiss the matter and directed it to a consultation hearing.

The applicant requested to withdraw its applications.

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

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act.

Prior to the scheduled hearing of preliminary and procedural issues, the parties met with a Labour Relations Officer and agreed to adjourn the matters.

The Board granted the adjournment on consent and rescheduled the hearing.

The Board adjourned the consultation date to a date to be set by the Registrar if necessary.

The responding party requested particulars of the circumstances of members affected by the alleged conduct.

The Board directed the applicant to advise within three days whether it objects to filing the particulars and its reasons for doing so.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 63 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die.

The Board noted that the application would be deemed terminated without further notice if neither party requested to proceed within one year.

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

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 of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union requested an order directing the responding party employer to produce certain documents prior to a scheduled hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding party to produce any agreed-upon documents by July 5, 2001, and to file submissions regarding any refused documents by the same date.

Any remaining disputes over production were to be addressed at the outset of the hearing on July 6, 2001.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit appeared to be members of the applicant.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.