OLRB 2001

The applicants applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.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 sought the production of bank records and HRDC applications relating to the responding parties in the context of related employer and grievance proceedings.

The Board directed the responding parties to make arrangements to obtain the bank records, with the parties to split the costs of the search.

The Board also directed the responding parties to provide copies of applications made to HRDC.

The issue of ultimate cost recovery for the bank charges was deferred to the hearing of the grievance.

The applicant union filed a grievance referral against the responding employer.

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant failed to file written submissions as directed by the Board in a previous decision.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application in Board File No. 1685-01-U. The Board also considered the responding parties' request to impose a one-year bar on future applications by the applicant due to abuse of process.

While the Board found the applicant's multiple unmeritorious applications constituted an abuse of process, it declined to impose a formal bar or require leave for future applications at this time, warning that further unmeritorious litigation could change this view.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine whether Carleton Place Manor is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The facility provides residential accommodation, meals, and nursing care to elderly residents.

The Board found that the facility provides observation, care, and treatment to its aged residents, making it a 'home for the aged' and therefore a 'hospital' under the Act.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to remit required deductions and contributions under the applicable collective agreements.

The responding party failed to file a response or notice of intent to defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the responding party was deemed to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the responding party liable for the unremitted amounts for June and July 2000, ordered payment of $25,592.03 plus filing fees, and directed the filing of reports for subsequent months.

The Iron Workers proposed that two matters be heard together, which the Operating Engineers supported.

However, the parties in one of the matters agreed to adjourn it sine die.

Consequently, the Board declined to hear the matters together.

The remaining matter was referred to the Manager, Field Services, for the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer, and the other was adjourned sine die.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party agreed the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate but disputed the estimated number of employees, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board could not be absolutely certain that 40% of the individuals in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, but the responding party agreed the ballots cast in the representation vote should be counted.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the adjournment of the hearing scheduled for September 6, 2001, to a date to be set by the Registrar after October 2, 2001.

The applicant, Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association Local 540, sought to withdraw its application against Canadian Curtis Refrigeration Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the responding party an extension of time until September 28, 2001, to file a response in the matter.

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

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

The applicant requested an adjournment of the appeal.

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

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

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.

The Board ordered a representation vote.

Because 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 directed that the ballot box be sealed pending further order or agreement.

The applicant filed a termination application seeking to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, and the union failing to particularize its allegations of employer interference under section 63(13) of the Act, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The Board also declined to schedule the union's grievance referral for hearing until the union clarified its intentions regarding a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Act.

The applicant requested orders regarding allegedly discriminatory statements in the responses filed by the union and the intervenor.

The Board declined the request, finding no legal basis for the orders.

The Board also confirmed that the applicant could not rely on health and safety allegations that had been previously dismissed in an earlier decision.

The applicant in one of three related proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board requested that the matters be consolidated.

The Vice-Chair noted concerns regarding duplicative document production and hearing time, as well as potential prejudice to the responding parties.

The Board directed a conference call with all counsel to discuss the proposed consolidation and scheduling.

The applicant applied 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 percent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be taken of the employees in the bargaining unit.

In a certification application, the applicant union requested that the ballots of five disputed individuals be counted, conceding that the application should be dismissed if it lacked majority support among them.

The responding employer and intervenor union opposed the request but identified no prejudice.

The Board ordered the ballots to be counted, noting it could resolve the matter without further litigation.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application against the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 1990.

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