OLRB 2001

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

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 Board found the numerical difference was not significant and directed a representation vote.

Board Member J.A. Ronson dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The applicant requested to withdraw its applications.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the applications were withdrawn.

The applicant, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, sought to withdraw its application against Diamond Stonebridge Contracting Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant union applied under section 115.1 of the Labour Relations Act to terminate a proceeding and order a new hearing because the adjudicator had not issued a decision within six months of the last hearing date.

Shortly after the application was filed, the adjudicator issued the overdue decision.

The Chair of the Board declined to exercise the extraordinary discretion to order a new hearing, finding that since the decision had now been issued, it would not make sense to burden the parties with a new multi-day hearing.

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with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The applicant applied 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 and that at least forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed late, and the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

Although the Ministry's collection agency had collected the full amount owing, the Board found no good reason to extend the time for filing.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant, Valley City Manufacturing Company Limited, sought to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant 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 applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for withdrawing his termination grievance.

The union and employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release settling all matters relating to his employment and termination in exchange for $9,500.

The Board found no violation of section 74, noting the union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

Furthermore, the Board exercised its discretion under section 96 to dismiss the application because the applicant had signed a release covering all employment entitlements, including reinstatement.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking to displace the intervenor union as the bargaining agent for the responding party's employees.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees to determine whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision to correct a clerical error in its October 3, 2001 decision.

The previous decision incorrectly identified Board Member Montague as the dissenting member, when it should have been Board Member Ronson.

An amended decision will follow.

Following the dismissal of an application, the responding party requested that the Board consider making an order for costs against the applicant union.

The Board declined to entertain argument on the issue, noting that a final decision had already been issued and that the Board has previously determined it lacks jurisdiction to award costs.

The applicant union sought certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent 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 Board dismissed the application and directed attention to section 10(3) of the Act regarding future applications.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Despite a dispute over the estimated number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit, the Board found sufficient membership support to direct a representation vote.

The vote was ordered for the proposed constituency, with eligible voters being those employed on the application filing date.

The applicant, a part-time employee, filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging that her union treated her differently by not converting her to full-time status, while other employees were converted without meeting the required hours.

The union provided a detailed response explaining the circumstances of the other conversions.

The Board found that while the application could not be dismissed on a prima facie basis due to a factual dispute, the applicant had failed to provide sufficient particulars to cast doubt on the union's plausible explanation.

The Board exercised its discretion to adjourn the proceeding, requiring the applicant to file particulars of facts raising a plausible issue, failing which the application would be terminated.

In an application for termination of bargaining rights, a representation vote resulted in an 8-7 vote against the union, with one segregated ballot remaining.

The applicant and employer argued the ballot should be counted as the employee consented, while the union argued counting it would violate ballot secrecy.

The Board held that ensuring the secrecy of the ballot by holding a second vote outweighed the considerations argued by the applicant and employer, and directed a second representation vote.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union requested the application be dismissed without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board declined to dismiss the application, finding that the specific allegations of the union's failure to communicate could potentially disclose a prima facie breach.

The matter was referred to a consultation and a Labour Relations Officer was appointed.

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

The responding party employer argued that the bargaining unit should be limited to the roads and sewer and water main sectors on a specific segment of Highway 417.

The Board rejected this argument, noting that the statute prescribes a specific bargaining unit for applications in the construction industry.

Finding that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the employees in the appropriate bargaining unit.