OLRB 2001

The CAW-Canada sought reconsideration of a Board decision certifying the Iron Workers, Local 834 as the bargaining agent for employees of Lambton Metal Works Ltd., arguing it had an interest but was not served with the certification application.

The Board directed the Registrar to provide CAW-Canada with copies of the application and response, and scheduled a hearing to deal with the reconsideration request alongside related applications.

The parties agreed to adjourn multiple applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board consented to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which they will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The Board authorized the release of funds held in trust arising from a grievance referral to arbitration.

The applicant union and the intervenor reached a without-prejudice agreement regarding the distribution of the funds.

The Board ordered the monies distributed to Global Benefits for provincial remittances and to the applicant for local remittances, with accrued interest divided pro-rata.

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

The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the applications would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant union requested that its grievance referral be heard together with its related employer and sale of business applications.

The union also requested that the additional employers named in the related employer application be added as responding parties to the grievance referral.

The Board directed that the applications be listed for hearing together.

The Board deferred consideration of the request to add the additional employers to the grievance referral until after the related employer application is considered, noting that the union had not filed an amended Certificate of Delivery for those employers.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor trade union.

The Board issued a procedural decision abridging the time for filing responses and interventions.

The Board also directed the responding employer to provide the names and positions of all employees in the bargaining unit and to advise of any proposals regarding arrangements for a representation vote.

The union filed applications against the responding parties alleging they were related employers or that a sale of business had occurred under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, along with an unfair labour practice complaint and a grievance referral.

Before the hearing commenced, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement wherein the responding parties agreed to pay the union $6,500.

The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die for a period of one year, with the union retaining the right to bring the applications back on for a hearing if there is a material change in the way the responding parties conduct their businesses.

The Board adjourned the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year in accordance with the settlement.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

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

In an application for certification, a representation vote was scheduled.

Counsel for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 353 asserted that the application was untimely and advised that an intervention would be filed.

The Board ordered the ballot box sealed until further order or agreement of the parties.

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 within the stipulated time.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of at least forty percent in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

The applicant union requested production and particulars.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that the request would be dealt with by the panel at the commencement of the hearing.

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

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the applicant nor her representative attended.

The Board exercised its discretion and dismissed the application orally at the hearing.

Later that same day, the applicant's counsel requested an adjournment, citing an inadvertent oversight due to being on vacation.

The Board confirmed its oral dismissal, noting the adjournment request was received too late and that the reasons provided would likely have been insufficient to grant an adjournment without the responding party's consent.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision more than a year after the decision was issued.

The Employment Standards Act requires applications to be filed within 45 days.

The applicant provided no reasons for the delay.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time and dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The applicant sought to include employees of a related employer in the voting constituency, despite no section 1(4) application having been filed.

The Board directed a representation vote for the primary employer's bargaining unit, allowing employees of the related employer to cast segregated ballots if they chose to vote.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The Board previously directed a representation vote and noted the employer's response was filed on time.

The applicant subsequently requested that the Board disregard the response because it was filed after 5:00 p.m. on the due date.

The Board exercised its discretion under Rules 41 and 44 of its Rules of Procedure to relieve against the strict application of the rules, noting that the response was received in time to be considered before the vote decision and the applicant alleged no prejudice.

The Board accepted the late response.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 54(2) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act for a declaration that Platoon Chiefs exercise managerial functions and should be excluded from the firefighters' bargaining unit.

The Board reviewed the duties of Platoon Chiefs, noting that while they supervise shifts and are the highest-ranking officers present 70% of the time, they lack the authority to materially affect the economic lives of the firefighters they supervise.

They do not hire, fire, or effectively recommend discipline.

The Board concluded that Platoon Chiefs do not exercise managerial functions and remain in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding employer disputed the union'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 ordered a representation vote, directing that ballots of part-time employees and other disputed positions be segregated.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration of successor rights.

A representation vote was ordered.

The employer inquired whether the ballots should be counted given its jurisdictional challenge.

The Board directed that the ballots be counted to inform the Board of the employees' wishes, without prejudice to the jurisdictional challenge.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to make required remittances to welfare and pension trust funds.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and 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 $46,969.79 in damages and $214.00 in costs.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of an earlier decision, asserting it was not served with the employer's response and that the response was therefore untimely.

The Board noted the certificate of delivery did not specify on whom the response was served.

The Board directed the responding party to advise whether it served the applicant and to provide a fax transmission report if it did, before determining whether to seal the ballot box.