OLRB 2001

The applicant union and responding employer 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 would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed.

The applicant sought production of notes authored by an employee, which were in the responding party's possession.

The responding party objected on the grounds of relevance and ownership.

Without determining relevance or admissibility, the Board directed the responding party to provide copies of the notes to the applicant, leaving any evidentiary objections to be dealt with at the hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into an agreement resolving all issues in dispute.

The Board found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate for collective bargaining.

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

A related application was withdrawn with leave.

The intervenor requested reconsideration of a decision directing a representation vote in a construction industry displacement application for certification.

The intervenor argued that the employer's failure to provide a number for its estimate of employees in the bargaining unit constituted a valid section 8.1 notice of zero employees, requiring the ballot box to be sealed.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that leaving the estimate blank invalidated the notice, and even if interpreted as zero, it would not raise a numerically significant challenge under the Labour Relations Act.

The responding party union brought a motion to dismiss the employer's unfair labour practice complaint for failing to make out a prima facie case, or alternatively, to consolidate it with the union's own complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to dismiss the employer's application without a hearing, noting that the discretion to dismiss for lack of a prima facie case should only be exercised in the clearest of cases.

The Board directed that the two applications be heard together, leaving the formal decision on consolidation to the hearing panel.

The applicant filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.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 the application timely and that not less than forty per cent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

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 union no longer represents the employees of Lewisfoods Inc.

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.

As there were no objections to holding a representation vote, the Board ordered a vote to determine whether the employees in the bargaining unit wish to be represented by the applicant or the predecessor union.

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 appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

The applicant referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate within the required time.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board deemed the responding party to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the responding party bound to the Provincial Agreement and declared it had violated the agreement.

A hearing was scheduled to determine damages.

The applicant applied for a review under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the responding party employer to pay the applicant $96.00, less statutory deductions, and terminated the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the reference having regard to correspondence received from the Director, Labour Management Services.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor, the Service Employees International Union, by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration.

The employer filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act and paid $1,278.86 in trust.

The Board directed the employer to re-submit the application on the correct form to comply with the Board's Rules of Procedure within 10 working days.

The employer failed to respond.

Consequently, the Board terminated the application and directed the Director to disburse the funds held in trust pursuant to the Order to Pay.

The applicant sought to review an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.

The application was filed more than six months after the refusal letter, well beyond the 45-day statutory limit under s. 68(3) of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant requested an extension of time, explaining the delay was due to his failure to check his mail at his parents' home for months at a time.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under s. 68(4) to extend the time, holding that the applicant must accept the risks associated with failing to check his mail on a timely basis.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant union sought a pre-hearing order directing the responding employer associations to produce extensive historical documents and minutes dating back to 1957.

The Board dismissed the request, finding the scope of production overly broad, not demonstrably relevant to the 2001 bargaining conduct at issue, and akin to a fishing expedition.

The applicant was directed to proceed with its case at the hearing, where production issues could be addressed if necessary.

In an application for certification in the construction industry, the applicant union challenged the status of several voters.

The applicant requested pre-hearing production of corporate and payroll records.

The Board directed the responding party to bring the requested documents to the hearing, where the panel will determine the scope of production.

The Board also directed the applicant to provide particulars regarding its challenges to specific individuals.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, after a representation vote had been held.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and directed the parties' attention to section 7(10) of the Act regarding potential bars to future applications.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party engaged in food services at Niagara College.

The Board found 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 proposed voting constituency, with segregated ballots for disputed positions.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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