OLRB 2001

The union requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing its application under section 115.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which allows the Chair to terminate a proceeding if a decision is not issued within six months of the last hearing day.

The union argued it had no opportunity to make representations or adduce evidence before the dismissal.

The Board directed the union to file complete representations and evidence in support of its application.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to pursue his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The employer requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board reviewed the applicant's amplified statement and concluded the matter would not be disposed of on a prima facie basis, directing that it be set down for a consultation.

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

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

If neither party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicant union requested permission to withdraw its application.

The Board noted that under section 7(8) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, it has discretion to permit withdrawal on such terms as it may determine.

Although the Board's past practice was to dismiss an application if the request was made after a vote, the identical effect of sections 7(10) and 10(3) rendered that distinction unnecessary.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board ordered the adjournment, noting that the matters would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding party employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 17 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union contended that the bargaining process for the most recent collective agreement was tainted by bad faith and material misrepresentation.

Following a lengthy hearing, the majority of the Board found no breach of the Act and dismissed the complaint, with one Board Member dissenting.

The Board issued a bottom-line decision to allow the parties to proceed with their collective bargaining relationship, with reasons to follow.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

After the matter was adjourned sine die, the applicant requested it be instated for hearing.

The Board directed the applicant to provide the union with a copy of her request letter and to provide the particulars sought by the union.

The Board also directed the union to seek the applicant's consent for its proposed adjournment of the scheduled consultation.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party failed to file a response.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and an affiliated bargaining agent.

Based on the membership evidence, the Board determined that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union filed grievances against the responding party employer for unpaid benefits.

The parties reached a settlement agreement dated June 29, 2001.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order declaring the employer bound by the collective agreement, finding a violation for failing to pay benefits for March, April, and May 2001, and ordering the employer to pay $2,518.40 in trust to the applicant.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the responding party contractor violated the provincial collective agreement by subcontracting the delivery and stockpiling of drywall to a non-union supplier.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis of res judicata or issue estoppel, relying on a prior Board decision (*Four Seasons Drywall*) which held that the delivery of drywall to a jobsite stockpile by a supplier was not construction work covered by the collective agreement.

The Board applied the test for issue estoppel and found that the same issue had been finally decided in the prior case involving the same union and supplier.

The Board concluded it should not relitigate the issue of whether delivery of drywall constitutes construction work, and dismissed the grievance.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation regarding a safety grievance from 1997.

The applicant was terminated in August 1997 and filed an initial application in 1999, which was dismissed for lack of particularity.

The current application was filed in September 2001.

The employer requested the Board dismiss the application due to delay.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 96(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to dismiss the application, finding that the delay of over four years significantly prejudiced the responding party and intervenor, and there was no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The applicant union (CAW-Canada) applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor union (SEIU Local 183).

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the SEIU, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the successor rights application.

The SEIU continues to be the bargaining agent for the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer violated the collective agreement by subcontracting work to a non-union company.

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 employer violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay damages and costs.

The applicant union and responding party employer agreed to adjourn the hearing scheduled for November 7, 2001.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment, with the matter to be rescheduled by the Registrar after November 30, 2001.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to make an order under the Employment Standards Act.

At the hearing, the applicant withdrew the appeal.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the matter.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging the employer discriminated against a union steward by not assigning him overtime scaffolding work.

The employer and an intervenor union requested an adjournment pending the outcome of a separate jurisdictional dispute application regarding scaffolding work.

The Board denied the adjournment request, finding that the grievance involved purely a question of collective agreement interpretation and application, as the employer had already assigned the work to members of the applicant union.

The Board ruled that determining the grievance would not require assessing whether the work was correctly assigned.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the time limit for filing the response and any intervention to September 7, 2001.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty 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 certified the union for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union filed an application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the transfer of ambulance services to the County of Oxford.

The parties reached a Memorandum of Agreement acknowledging that the transfer constituted a sale of a business and resulted in an intermingling of employees.

The Board issued consent declarations and ordered a representation vote to determine whether the employees would be represented by OPSEU or the CAW.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than 50 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 dismissed the application.

The Board directed the attention of the parties to section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding future applications.