OLRB 2001

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

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 employer sought 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 ordered the disbursement of the $6,942.80 held in trust by the Director, with $5,554.24 returned to the employer, $388.56 paid to the employee, and a $1,000.00 administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The employer and the union sought leave to withdraw two complaints on the basis that they had been resolved as part of a collective agreement settlement.

The individual applicant, Francis Naraine, initially opposed the withdrawal.

At the hearing, Naraine's representative conceded that the union had the authority to settle the complaint on his behalf.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the complaints, noting that if Naraine wished to pursue allegations that the union breached its duty of fair representation, he must file a separate complaint under section 96 of the Act.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

Following a settlement with one employee, the employer reached a settlement with the remaining employee and the Ministry of Labour at the hearing.

The Board ordered the disbursement of funds held in trust in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement, returning $11,160 to the employer and retaining an $840 administrative fee for the Ministry.

The application was terminated pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Employment Standards Act.

Following a previous decision dealing with allegations of a violation of section 149, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the applicants to advise whether they wished to proceed with the remainder of their application.

The applicants were given until July 6, 2001 to respond, failing which the application would be deemed terminated.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that the matter be adjourned to a date to be set by the Registrar.

The applicants filed an application 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 Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The employer and the employee entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to disburse the $11,000 held in trust by the Director.

The Board ordered the funds to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $5,000 to the employer, $5,000 to the employee, and $1,000 retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and terminated the application.

The applicant sought to review an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay.

The application was filed one day late because it was mistakenly sent to the Ministry of Labour instead of the Board.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for applying for review, noting the applicant's clear intention to seek a review within the stipulated time and the minimal delay.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant failed to file an application within 10 days as directed by the Board's previous correspondence.

Consequently, the Board ordered the matter terminated.

The applicants requested to withdraw their application.

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

The applicant sought to withdraw his application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding union requested that the Board dismiss the application without a hearing on the basis that it did not make out a violation of section 74.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the union's assertion and identifying any disputed paragraphs in the response and intervention before determining whether the matter ought to proceed to a consultation or hearing.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union advised the Board that the applicant failed to include the Form A-29 and supporting statement in the served materials.

The Board directed the applicant to serve the missing documents on the union and provide written proof of delivery to the Registrar, with the union's response time running from the date of receipt.

The underlying grievance referrals were terminated pursuant to the parties' agreement to resolve the issues between them.

Subsequently, counsel for the responding parties and an intervenor requested written reasons for the Board's earlier oral ruling refusing to hear extrinsic evidence regarding an alleged ambiguity in the collective agreement.

The Board declined the request, finding that no labour relations purpose would be served by issuing written reasons after the matters had already been terminated.

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 an affiliated bargaining agent.

Based on the application and membership evidence, the Board determined that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than 50% of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the parties agreed on the correct name of the responding party.

The Board ordered the issuance of two certificates pursuant to section 160(1) of the Act: one for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector, and another for all other sectors in the specified geographic areas.

The applicant employer filed two applications seeking a declaration that it is a 'non-construction employer' under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The first application was filed before legislative amendments changed the definition of 'non-construction employer', while the second was filed after.

The responding union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the first application for delay and argued that the new definition should apply.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding no prejudice to the union from the delay, and held that the first application would be determined under the pre-amendment definition because the applicant's substantive rights were affected and the proceeding was commenced under the old legislation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions in an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board directed the parties to file briefs and documents regarding the issues in dispute and scheduled a consultation and/or hearing for May 7, 2001.