OLRB 2001

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent security officers at the Thunder Bay Charity Casino.

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 majority of the Board found the numerical difference was not significant and directed a representation vote without sealing the ballot box.

A dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

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

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued certificates to the union for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry in Ontario, and for all other sectors in the Counties of Essex and Kent.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application against Magna of London (Mega Plas).

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

The applicant filed an application for review of an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act.

However, the applicant failed to pay the amount set out in the order to the Director in trust, as required by section 68(7) of the Act.

The Board held that it has no discretion to waive this requirement.

Because 45 days had elapsed since the order was issued and the payment was not made, the application was not properly made and the matter was terminated.

The applicant employer applied for a determination of bargaining units and bargaining agents following a municipal restructuring under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description.

Following a representation vote where the majority voted in favour of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636, the Board declared it the bargaining agent and terminated the bargaining rights of the other responding unions.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union brought an application against Mains Ouvertes – Open Hands Inc. The application was withdrawn with leave of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The union referred a construction industry grievance to the Board, alleging that the employer failed to comply with a settlement agreement by not reinstating two grievors.

The Board found that the parties had amended the settlement during a telephone conversation, waiving the employer's obligation to reinstate the grievors on the specified date.

The employer had offered to reinstate them, but the union indicated it was not necessary.

The union subsequently failed to refer the grievors to the project when requested by the employer.

The Board concluded there was no violation of the settlement and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union, alleging it failed to assist him with a classification dispute dating back to 1996.

The union sought to dismiss the application for excessive delay and failure to disclose a prima facie case, noting the applicant was reclassified in January 2001 after passing a test.

The Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining the five-year delay and responding to the union's specific allegations before determining whether to dismiss the application.

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

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

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

The union requested the application be dismissed without a hearing due to a lack of particulars.

The Board directed the applicant to file a brief written statement outlining the material facts relied upon, after which the union would have an opportunity to reply and renew its request for dismissal.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file a response or intervention.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and extended the deadline to May 4, 2001.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, noting that it would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file its response to the union's submissions opposing the applicant's request for a suspension of an Inspector's Order.

The Board granted the extension until November 7, 2001.

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

The Board reviewed the materials filed in support of the application and found that the petition evidence was defective, as three of the four pages lacked any heading indicating what the signatories were signing.

Consequently, the Board could not conclude that 40 per cent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit appeared to have expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The application was dismissed.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

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

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement to resolve the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the disbursement of the $21,572.42 held in trust by the Director in accordance with the settlement terms, and terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant union brought an application under the Employment Standards Act claiming that the responding parties, who took over portions of the food services contract at Pearson International Airport from the predecessor employer, were successor employers liable for termination pay.

The responding parties argued that the building owner (GTAA) was a federal undertaking, rendering the provincial successor employer provisions inapplicable, and raised several other statutory defenses.

The Board held that the provincial law applied as it did not impair the federal undertaking, found that the responding parties were successor employers providing services to the building owner, and concluded that the employees were entitled to termination pay from the successors despite having received notice from the predecessor.

The applicant requested to withdraw its request for reconsideration.

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

The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die.

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