OLRB 2001

In an application for certification, the applicant union requested to amend its name to 'International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, Local 2/ Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada Local 2'.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined the request, noting that previous decisions established the BACU is not the successor to the International Union, and the membership evidence was solely in the name of the BACU.

The matter was referred to the Manager of Field Services to be processed with a related section 96 application.

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

The responding party and the intervenor, Fort William First Nation, argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to conduct a representation vote because the project was located on First Nation lands, asserting jurisdiction belonged to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.

The Board deferred the jurisdictional arguments to be heard after the vote and directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the proposed bargaining unit.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement, agreeing to disburse the funds held in trust and terminate the application.

The day after signing, the employer sought to resile from the settlement, citing new advice regarding potential theft charges against the employee.

The Board declined to inquire further, holding that parties cannot resile from signed Minutes of Settlement simply because they change their minds or seek further advice, as doing so would undermine the finality of settlements.

The Board directed the disbursement of funds in accordance with the settlement.

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

The employer and the employee subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the disbursement of the funds held in trust by the Director in accordance with the settlement, directing $505.86 to the employee and $100.00 to the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and terminated the application.

The union requested reconsideration of a Board decision that ordered a representation vote in an application to terminate bargaining rights.

The union argued that the application lacked the requisite evidence under s. 63(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because the employees were working outside the bargaining unit's geographic scope on the application date.

The Board declined to determine the reconsideration request at this time, noting the vote had already been held and the ballot box sealed.

The matter was referred to the Registrar for a hearing where the union could argue the employees' eligibility to vote.

The Carpenters union sought an order directing the employer to produce further documents, including site meeting minutes and invoices, relating to the layoff of two employees.

The Board ordered the employer to produce site meeting minutes if they were in its control, but declined to order production of invoices, finding them irrelevant to the issue of the layoffs.

The Board noted that the employer would not be permitted to rely on any document at the hearing that it had not already produced.

The applicant union referred three grievances to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for determination under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

On the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the applications sine die, noting they would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the applicant union to file submissions in response to requests for reconsideration and related issues raised by the responding parties within two weeks.

The responding parties were directed to file any reply submissions within two weeks after receiving the applicant's submissions.

The panel remained seized with respect to the request for reconsideration.

The applicants filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for placing them at the bottom of the seniority list after their former employer was acquired by the intervenor.

The Board previously directed the applicants to file further submissions alleging facts that would establish the union's decision was arbitrary, discriminatory, or made in bad faith.

The applicants argued that in past acquisitions, seniority was dovetailed.

The Board found the past circumstances were different and the applicants failed to assert facts showing arbitrary or discriminatory treatment.

The Board exercised its discretion to refuse to inquire further and dismissed the application.

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

The applicant challenged the standing of the intervenor union, Local 27, and requested disclosure of its membership evidence.

The responding party employer asserted it had no employees in the bargaining unit on the application date, claiming the individuals were employed by a different entity.

The Board found the employer's section 8.1 notice irrelevant given its position that there were no employees.

The Board referred the application to the Registrar for a hearing to determine Local 27's standing, whether the individuals performed bargaining unit work on the application date, and whether they were employed by the responding party.

The applicant employer appealed three Orders to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act considerably outside the 45-day statutory appeal period.

The applicant claimed it never received the Orders to Pay until a collection agency became involved.

The Board noted that the Ministry of Labour sent the Orders to the applicant's correct business address and to the attention of the responsible person.

The Board found it unlikely that none of the three separate mailings reached the applicant, concluding instead that the applicant ignored them.

The Board declined to grant an extension of time and dismissed the appeal as untimely.

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

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

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50 per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were cast in opposition to the responding party union.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed following the vote.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The applicant Ironworkers filed two jurisdictional dispute complaints regarding work assigned by the employer to the Millwrights.

The first complaint involved repair and maintenance of slat conveyors at a Toyota plant, which the Board upheld as correctly assigned to the Millwrights based on area practice and the International Agreement.

The second complaint involved the installation of an overhead mono-rail conveyor at a Budd plant.

The Board found the employer incorrectly assigned all phase 2 work to the Millwrights, holding that the work should have been assigned in accordance with the conveyor agreement, which would have allocated a portion of the work to the Ironworkers.

The applicant union sought an order requiring the production of documents and particulars from the responding parties in advance of the hearing.

The applicant submitted that it had requested information from the responding parties but had not received a response.

Given the scope and nature of the documents sought, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to make an order until the responding parties had an opportunity to make submissions.

The Board directed the parties to file written submissions regarding the production request and remained seized of the matter.

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

The Board issued procedural directions, abridging the time for filing responses and directing the employer to provide a list of employees in the bargaining unit in preparation for a representation vote.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote.

Because the responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and proposed a different bargaining unit, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Act, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed until further order or agreement.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the applications would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicants challenged the parent union's decision to place the local provincial conference in receivership.

The Board found that the parent union lacked just cause to impose the receivership, as it sought to use its constitutional power to require the local union to abandon its statutory rights and surrender in an ongoing dispute over local autonomy.

The receivership was declared null and void.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote in which more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued certificates to the applicant for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector in the Province of Ontario, and for all other sectors in the Counties of Essex and Kent, pursuant to section 160(1) of the Labour Relations Act.