OLRB 2001

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision to correct typographical errors in its previous decision dated June 14, 2001.

The references to subsections 82.4 and 82.3 of the Employment Standards Act were corrected to read subsections 82.3(4) and 82.3(1), respectively.

The applicants and responding parties agreed to adjourn the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the Pool and Fitness Centre in the City of Dryden.

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 certified the applicant as the bargaining agent.

A certificate was ordered to issue.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board previously dismissed the application on October 4, 2001.

The Board subsequently received late documents from the applicant.

The Board held that the documents did not constitute a request for reconsideration and provided no basis to change the previous decision.

The October 4, 2001 decision stands.

The employer applied to review an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay $544.00 in accrued vacation pay to a former employee.

The employer claimed the employee had already taken all accrued vacation.

The Board found the employee's evidence regarding his vacation history more reliable than the employer's, noting the employer failed to keep required vacation records.

The application was dismissed and the order to pay was upheld.

Four directors appealed separate orders to pay issued against them under the Employment Standards Act.

Three of the directors failed to appear at the hearing, and their appeals were dismissed.

The remaining director, who appeared self-represented, entered into Minutes of Settlement with the Ministry of Labour regarding the outstanding balance of the orders to pay.

The adjudicator dismissed the remaining director's appeal subject to and in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

The applicants requested to withdraw multiple applications against Petro-Canada, Lakeline Transportation Services, and Steve May.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the applications were withdrawn.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the applicant to deliver a copy of his statement dated October 1, 2001, to counsel for the union within 10 days.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent 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 certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant requested the Board to compel the intervenor to provide a detailed response to the application.

The responding union and intervenor alleged that the underlying discharge grievance had been referred to arbitration, and the union asked the Board to refuse to hear the application for lack of a valid labour relations purpose.

The Board directed the applicant to make submissions on whether the grievance was referred to arbitration and why the Board should not exercise its discretion to decline to inquire further.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on September 7, 2001.

However, because issues were raised in a related file regarding whether the employer is a construction employer and concerning the membership evidence, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed and the ballots not counted until further order.

The applicant unions wrote to the Board regarding the responding parties' failure to comply with a document production timetable set in an earlier decision.

The Board, assuming the applicants' facts to be true absent a response, directed the responding parties to comply with the previous orders forthwith and modified the timetable.

The Board ordered the scheduled hearing to proceed and directed the responding parties to appear with representatives capable of speaking to document production issues.

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

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate 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 established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed a representation vote, with individuals in disputed positions casting segregated ballots.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification.

The employer and intervenor argued the application was untimely based on the duration clause of the existing collective agreement.

The applicant contended the collective agreement was invalid because it had not been ratified by bargaining unit members.

The Board directed the applicant to file detailed submissions supporting its position on timeliness, with the responding party and intervenor given an opportunity to respond.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board 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 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote to be held.

The responding party's request to dismiss the application under section 63(16), alleging employer initiation, was deferred to the panel scheduled to hear the application.

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

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

The appellant appealed under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the appeal sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within one year.

The employer requested the suspension of several orders made by an Occupational Health and Safety Officer regarding the formulation of workplace violence policies and the involvement of the Joint Health and Safety Committee.

The Board suspended Orders 1, 2, and 3, finding that compliance with Order 1 was impossible pending the promulgation of regulations under the Ontario Safe Schools Act, and that Orders 2 and 3 were either theoretical or dependent on suspended orders.

The Board declined to suspend Orders 4 and 5, noting that the employer appeared to have already complied with them.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application for certification.

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

The Board directed the parties' attention to section 7(10) of the Act regarding the potential effect of the withdrawal on any subsequent application filed within one year.

The Registrar was directed to destroy the ballots cast in the representation vote after 30 days.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by dropping their grievances regarding seniority and lines of progression.

The employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing under Rule 46.

The Board found the applicant failed to plead any facts suggesting the union's decision was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

Furthermore, the lead applicant did not appear to be personally affected and failed to provide authorization to represent the others.

The application was dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.