OLRB 2001

The applicant filed an application against Decks Plus and the Ministry of Labour.

Having regard to a settlement agreement reached between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application terminated.

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing, having requested an adjournment two days prior due to late receipt of the Notice of Hearing.

The Board found that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to the applicant's old address and that two days' notice was insufficient.

Despite the applicant's failure to attend the hearing to explain the request or notify the responding parties, the Board granted the adjournment and referred the matter to the Registrar for rescheduling.

The applicant filed multiple applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board against his union and employer, including applications regarding employee status, sale of business, duty of fair representation, and a request for the union's financial statements.

The Board dismissed the employee status and sale of business applications for failing to disclose material facts or issues.

The Board also dismissed the applicant's request to reconsider a previous decision allowing him to withdraw his duty of fair representation complaint.

The Board declined to dismiss the application for financial statements, finding it disclosed a prima facie case and was not delayed.

The Board directed the applicant to provide submissions on why his remaining applications should not be dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicant filed multiple applications against the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association and related entities.

On consent of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year, to be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made within that time.

The applicants requested to withdraw their applications.

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

The applicant appealed an inspector's order under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Prior to the hearing, the Ministry of Labour advised that the order had been rescinded and argued the appeal was moot.

The Board directed the applicant to advise the Board and the other parties of its position on the mootness issue within seven days.

In the context of certification applications and an unfair labour practice complaint, the responding employers brought a preliminary motion to strike new allegations of improper conduct filed by the applicant union.

The employers argued the amendments were filed too late under Rule 38 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board found that some of the new details were merely particulars of original allegations and permitted them.

Post-vote allegations against a specific individual were allowed solely as admissions against interest.

However, a new allegation against the site superintendent was struck because it was not raised promptly and the union offered no reasonable explanation for the delay.

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 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.

Although the responding party disputed the bargaining unit description and the number of employees, the Board found the applicant established sufficient membership support.

The Board directed a representation vote for the proposed voting constituency.

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, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine whether the applicant should succeed the predecessor union as the collective bargaining agent for the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant filed an application against the responding party union, with the employer intervening.

Having regard to a letter from the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, but not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

As a result, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the parties' attention to the statutory bar on future applications under section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

In a certification application and related unfair labour practice complaint, the employer argued that the union had abandoned its challenges to the managerial status of four individuals by filing its submissions one business day late.

The Board exercised its discretion to relieve against the strict application of the Rules, finding the delay was marginal, caused no prejudice, and the union's position had been clear throughout.

The Board also ruled that the two applications would be heard together and directed the employer to proceed first in calling its evidence on all issues.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement 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 and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act, but agreed that the ballots cast could be counted.

The Board found that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible individuals in the voting constituency.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Although the certificate of service indicated the application was sent by regular mail, both the responding party and the employer informed the Board they had not received it.

The Board directed the applicant to serve a copy of the application on both the responding party and the employer.

The applicant applied to decertify the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were 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 hospital.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency.

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

The Board granted leave to withdraw the application and cancelled the previously scheduled meeting and hearing dates.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision regarding a jurisdictional dispute over masonry restoration work, arguing the Board should have conducted a hearing to receive evidence on area practice.

The Board dismissed the request, noting it had the statutory authority to determine the matter without a hearing.

The Board further observed that the applicant's own submissions indicated it had not previously performed the disputed work in the relevant geographic area, contradicting its claim of a consistent area practice.

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement settling the matter.

The Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement, had violated its terms, and ordered the payment of $4,754.60 in damages to the applicant in accordance with the settlement terms.