OLRB 2001

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees of the responding party, who were currently represented by the intervenor union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that it appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for the following day because his wife was hospitalized and very ill.

The Ministry of Labour consented, but the applicant was unable to contact the responding party employee.

The Board granted the adjournment due to the circumstances and referred the matter to the Registrar for rescheduling.

The employer filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

The Officer had incorrectly stated that the deadline for appeal was 30 days from the date of the order.

The Board noted that under section 68(3)(a) of the Employment Standards Act, the deadline is 45 days.

As the employer filed the application and paid the required monies into trust within the 45-day period, the application was deemed timely and referred for processing.

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

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in the proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the agreed-upon voting constituency.

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

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 that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held.

The employer applied to review an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for unpaid commissions and vacation pay to a former sales executive.

The claimant argued she was entitled to commissions on contracts she secured before resigning, even though the employer only received fees after implementing recommendations post-departure.

The Board rescinded the Order to Pay, finding the claimant's contribution in merely securing the initial contracts was too remote and preliminary to confer entitlement to commissions on the fees ultimately received.

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 it established sufficient membership support in the proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of employees but agreed the ballots should be counted.

The Board directed a representation vote to be held on June 20, 2001, and ordered the responding party to properly post the required notices.

The applicant sought a review under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board previously directed the applicant to submit payment of the required funds in accordance with section 68(7) of the Act.

The applicant failed to do so.

Consequently, the Board terminated the matter.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled consultation, alleging bias and conflict of interest against the Board.

The Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's non-attendance, noting that the allegations of bias were without merit and that the applicant failed to provide evidence to establish her case.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay two days after the 45-day time period for filing appeals had expired.

The employer requested an extension of time, explaining that he had been busy with other business and personal matters and had not attended to his paperwork.

The Board declined to extend the time, finding that failing to read mail in a timely way is not a sufficient reason to grant an extension.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant employer filed an application alleging that employees engaged in an unlawful strike after the employer added weekend shifts to their work schedules.

The employer sought a declaration that the strike activity was unlawful and a direction prohibiting it.

The Board reviewed the relevant provisions of the Labour Relations Act regarding unlawful strikes and scheduled the matter for an expedited hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent paramedical employees at the responding party hospital.

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 that the applicant established sufficient membership support for a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant sought to review the refusal of an Employment Standards Officer to issue an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant requested to proceed on an anonymous basis, without the responding party employer's knowledge or presence.

The Board denied the request, holding that fairness requires the employer to have the opportunity to fully participate and meet the case against it.

The Board directed the applicant to advise within 10 days whether he wished to continue the application, failing which it would be deemed dismissed.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay termination and vacation pay to a former employee.

The employee had been laid off without a specific recall date, which the Employment Standards Officer determined was an indefinite lay-off constituting termination under the Employment Standards Act.

The employer argued the lay-off was temporary, or alternatively, that the employee was estopped from claiming termination pay because he was subsequently recalled, or that the recall period constituted working notice.

The Board found that the failure to provide a specific recall date within the statutory temporary lay-off period resulted in an indefinite lay-off, deemed to be a termination.

The Board rejected the estoppel and working notice arguments, affirming the Order to Pay.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent part-time employees of the responding party.

The responding party did not file a response.

The 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 trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of Participation House, Waterloo Region.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

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

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Employment Standards Act, subject to any written objection from the Ministry of Labour within 10 days.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant had not yet proved its trade union status within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as the necessary documents had not been received.

However, based on the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the employees in the proposed bargaining unit.

The ballot box will be sealed and the ballots will not be counted until the applicant proves its trade union status or the parties agree.

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

The application was filed four days after the 45-day statutory deadline.

The applicant requested an extension of time, citing a death in the family as the reason for the delay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act to extend the time for filing, noting the short duration of the delay and the reason advanced.

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

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit, arguing there was only one employee at work on the application date and giving notice under section 8.1 of the Act.

The Board deferred the determination of the number of employees to a future hearing and ordered a representation vote to proceed.

The ballot box was ordered sealed pending the resolution of the dispute.