OLRB 2001

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application against the responding party union.

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the application was withdrawn.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The responding party advised by letter that it no longer wished to represent the employees.

Pursuant to section 63(17) of the Act, the Board declared that the responding party no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant sought a review of a refusal to issue an order under the Employment Standards Act.

The parties entered into written Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer.

As the settlement disposed of all issues in dispute, the Board terminated the application in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant filed an application against the responding union.

On the agreement of the parties, the Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The applicant applied under section 127.2 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the responding parties.

The parties agreed to extend the time for the responding parties to file their reply.

The Board granted the extension, ordering the reply to be filed by August 20, 2001, or at least seven days before the hearing date.

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

Having regard to the settlement reached by the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.

The applicant union sought leave to file additional relief and particulars in a proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the requested leave as set out in the correspondence from the applicant's counsel.

Consequently, the Board extended the deadline for the responding party employer to file its response.

The procedural motion was granted.

The applicant submitted correspondence purporting to apply for a review under the Employment Standards Act.

The Registrar advised the applicant that the appeal must be filed on Form A-69 and provided a 10-day deadline.

The applicant failed to submit the required form, and the Board terminated the proceeding.

The applicant union applied for certification.

On the scheduled hearing date, the parties filed a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Board directed that a new representation vote be held, noting that proper notice of the first vote was not provided to all employees.

The Board ordered the employer to post notices of the new vote and referred the matter to the Registrar.

The applicant failed to file a Certificate of Delivery by the deadline set in a previous Board decision.

As a result, the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay.

At the hearing, the applicant no longer disputed the assessed amounts but requested the Board to issue a decision affirming the officer's findings while explicitly excluding any determination on termination pay, in order to preserve her right to pursue a civil action for wrongful dismissal under section 64.3 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the officer was entitled to investigate termination pay and that it is not the Board's role to determine whether the applicant's complaint bars a civil action.

The parties reached an agreement on all outstanding issues regarding a certification application and an unfair labour practice complaint.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue for a bargaining unit of plumbers and plumbers' apprentices.

The related unfair labour practice complaint was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant requested an order directing the respondents to disclose certain materials.

The respondents agreed to provide most of the materials.

The respondent Central Park Lodges Ltd. noted that regulations under the Nursing Home Act prohibited the release of representative patient files without an order.

The Board ordered the production of the patient files with identifying information removed, noting the implied undertaking that produced documents not be used for collateral purposes.

The Toronto Transit Commission brought a jurisdictional dispute concerning the assignment of work on a new sandblasting machine at the Hillcrest shop.

The work was assigned to the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113, but the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Lodge 235 claimed the work should have gone to its members.

The Board considered factors including past practice, economy, and efficiency.

The Board found that employer preference, economy, and efficiency favoured the assignment to the ATU members, as taking the work from them would disrupt an integrated production process and increase costs.

The Board upheld the assignment of the work to the ATU.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the matter sine die for a period not to exceed one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board referred the matter to the Registrar to be rescheduled, noting the parties' request to relist the hearing for June 22, 2001.

The Board directed that if the matter is not relisted within one year, it will be deemed automatically terminated.

The responding employer requested that the Board dismiss the applicant's section 50 Occupational Health and Safety Act application on a prima facie basis.

The applicant, a truck driver, claimed he was removed from his driving responsibilities after writing to the Ministry of Labour regarding concerns with a 'Drivers Pledge' he was forced to sign.

The Board found that the applicant made out a prima facie case of reprisal and referred the matter to the Registrar for a hearing on the merits.

The applicant union sought an interim certificate for a bargaining unit of employees of the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description except for the inclusion of Shift Supervisors at the rank of Sergeant, which the responding party argued should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant's right to certification would not be affected by the ultimate decision on the disputed classification, as more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in favour of the applicant regardless.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 9(2) of the Act to issue an interim certificate pending the final resolution of the bargaining unit's composition.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die.

The application will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed within one year.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for the employees of the responding party.

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 Board found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate.

The Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant and cancelled previously set meeting and hearing dates.