OLRB 2001

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a ratification vote for a collective agreement settled by interest arbitration.

The applicant later sought to amend the pleadings to argue the agreement to arbitrate was invalid.

The Board declined to inquire further into the application, finding the amended pleadings were filed with undue delay and expanded the scope of the original complaint.

The Board also noted the union had since been decertified, rendering the requested relief moot and serving no labour relations purpose.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification.

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

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

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.

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 of the applicant.

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

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 proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and ordered a representation vote, directing that all ballots be segregated and the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the disputes over the bargaining unit's geographic scope and composition.

The applicant employer sought an extension of time to file an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed late due to incorrect advice from an Employment Standards Officer and filing at the wrong Ministry office.

The Board found that the applicant had a clear intention to appeal, made reasonable efforts to do so expeditiously, and no prejudice was caused by the brief delay.

The Board granted the extension of time.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, that it represented employees of the responding party, Borden Cold Storage Limited, following the sale of a warehouse facility by J. M. Schneider Inc. The union argued that the transaction constituted a sale of part of a business, thereby transferring bargaining rights.

The Board found that the transaction was merely a sale of idle assets, specifically an empty and derelict warehouse, rather than the transfer of a functional economic vehicle or operational entity.

The purchaser created a new third-party commercial enterprise from the ground up.

Consequently, the Board concluded there was no sale of a business within the meaning of the Act and dismissed the application.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act.

The responding party employee failed to attend the hearing.

Based on the employer's representations, the Board found that the employee voluntarily quit and was not terminated, meaning he was not entitled to termination pay.

The Board rescinded the Order to Pay and directed the return of funds held in trust to the applicant.

The applicant applied to terminate the responding party's bargaining rights.

A representation vote was held in the employer's boardroom, resulting in a unanimous vote for termination.

The responding party objected to the vote location, arguing it was not neutral and should have been held at the job sites.

The Board noted that holding a vote on employer premises is common and does not inherently prevent employees from expressing their true wishes.

The Board directed the responding party to file written submissions detailing its objections before determining if a hearing is necessary.

The applicant applied to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

A representation vote was held in the employer's boardroom, resulting in a unanimous vote for termination.

The union objected to the vote location, arguing it was not neutral, and requested a hearing.

The Board noted that holding a vote on the employer's premises does not inherently prevent employees from expressing their true wishes and directed the union to file written submissions detailing its objections before determining if a hearing is necessary.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer failed to make timely remittances to various health, welfare, and pension funds.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement wherein the employer acknowledged the violation and agreed to pay $117,946.66 in principal and $4,910.99 in liquidated damages.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order incorporating the agreed-upon terms.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification to represent Language Instructors for New Comers to Canada (LINC) employed by the York Catholic District School Board.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and determined the appropriate bargaining unit based on the parties' agreement.

Finding that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant sought to appeal a decision of an employment standards officer.

The Registrar advised the applicant that the application was not properly filed and gave him 10 days to file a proper application.

The applicant failed to file a proper application within the time limits, and the application was terminated.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying her claim that she was terminated because of her pregnancy.

The employer claimed she was terminated for poor attendance and inability to work full-time hours.

The Board found that the employer's reasons were not credible, as the applicant was an excellent worker and the employer had previously accommodated her schedule.

The Board concluded that the termination was tainted by consideration of her pregnancy, violating section 44 of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant was awarded $13,639.00 in compensation, including direct wage loss, loss of reasonable expectation of continued employment, and pain and suffering.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and cancelled any previously set meeting and hearing dates.

The responding party was directed to post copies of the decision.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed beyond the statutory time limit.

The applicant requested an extension of time and provided submissions in support.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 68(4) of the Act to extend the time for filing, rendering the application timely, and referred the matter to the Registrar.

The employer indicated that statutory deductions were made by a payroll service, but a dispute remained regarding the deductions made and remitted to Revenue Canada.

The Board referred the matter to the Registrar to be processed.

The applicants, former employees of BFI who became employed by Canadian Waste Services Inc. following a buyout, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against their union, CAW Local 4268.

They alleged the union acted arbitrarily by placing them at the bottom of the seniority list rather than recognizing their accumulated seniority from BFI.

The union sought to dismiss the application for undue delay and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the union's motions, finding no undue delay and that the allegations required an explanation.

However, noting the union's bona fide explanation for protecting incumbent employees, the Board directed the applicants to file submissions demonstrating why the Board should not exercise its discretion to refuse to inquire further into the complaint.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification for full-time and part-time employees at McMaster University, who were currently represented by the intervenor.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support to warrant representation votes.

The Board ordered separate representation votes for the full-time and part-time bargaining units, with the issue of the applicant's trade union status and the final determination of the appropriate bargaining units deferred until after the votes.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

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

The Board directed that the monies held in trust by the Director be paid out in accordance with the settlement and terminated the application.

The applicant employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

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

The Board directed that the monies held in trust by the Director be paid to the employees and employer in accordance with the settlement, and the application was terminated.