OLRB 2001

The applicant filed an application for certification on November 27, 2001.

The Board's Confirmation of Filing incorrectly stated the application date was November 28, 2001.

The Board issued a decision confirming the correct application date and directed the Registrar to deliver an amended form to the parties.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act alleging a sale of a business regarding ambulance services downloaded to the County of Huron.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing that a sale of a business had occurred and defining the appropriate bargaining unit for paramedics.

The Board issued declarations and orders in accordance with the settlement, including directing a three-way representation vote between the competing unions.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

As the responding party disputed the geographic scope of the bargaining unit, the Board directed that individuals in disputed positions could cast segregated ballots.

The applicant requested to withdraw its applications with leave of the Board.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the applications were withdrawn.

The applicant union filed a certification application.

The intervenor union contended the application was untimely because an interest board of arbitration continued to be seized of certain contractual matters between the intervenor and the responding party employer.

The parties agreed on a three-year term for their collective agreement, but disputed how the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act applied.

The Board decided to set the application down for a hearing prior to holding a representation vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the applicant to deliver a copy of the submissions he filed with the Board to counsel for the intervenor employer.

At the scheduled hearing, the parties agreed to adjourn the matters.

The Board rescheduled the hearing for July 19 and 20, 2001, on consent of the parties.

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer eliminated its bargaining unit to avoid collective agreement obligations.

The employer filed a jurisdictional dispute and sought to defer the matters to arbitration, arguing the collective agreement explicitly contemplated the elimination of the composing room due to technological change.

The Board found the dispute to be primarily contractual rather than a total repudiation of the bargaining process.

The Board deferred the unfair labour practice complaint and jurisdictional dispute to arbitration and adjourned the matters sine die.

The Ontario Nurses' Association requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the time limit for the filing and delivering of all responses to October 22, 2001.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification and directed the destruction of the ballots after 30 days.

The applicant requested that his application be adjourned sine die because his discharge grievance had been referred to arbitration.

The Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed.

In a certification application, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a preliminary decision regarding the applicant's status as a trade union.

The intervenors questioned the applicant's membership evidence and the deduction of union dues without a collective agreement.

The applicant provided minutes showing the adoption of its constitution and acceptance of members, as well as employee authorizations for payroll deductions to a credit union.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and directed that a hearing be held to determine the appropriate bargaining unit and whether a representation vote should be held.

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

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 Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party library board.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent 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 as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant requested a further adjournment of the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding party to respond to the request by November 2, 2001.

If no submissions are received, the application will be adjourned until February 8, 2002.

The applicant applied to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights for a unit of electricians and apprentices employed by the intervenor.

Following a representation vote in which more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The Board noted the potential application of section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to any subsequent application filed within one year.

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

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

The union referred a grievance to arbitration alleging the employer failed to pay a travel allowance for work at a plant in Smith Falls.

The employer argued the plant was within the 'travel free zone' defined in the collective agreement.

The Board found the language of the collective agreement unambiguous and concluded the plant was within the travel free zone.

The Board rejected the union's request to call extrinsic evidence and held that, as a statutory arbitrator, it lacked jurisdiction to rectify the collective agreement to correct an alleged mutual mistake.

The grievance was dismissed.

The applicant, a director of West Machinery Co. Limited, sought a review of an order to pay unpaid wages and vacation pay owed to employees of Tobac Curing Systems Limited.

The Employment Standards Officer had found that West and Tobac were related employers under section 12 of the Employment Standards Act and issued the order against the applicant as a director of West.

The Board found that the two companies were related businesses, as they operated under the same roof, shared a controlling mind, and West relied almost exclusively on Tobac's employees.

The Board also rejected the applicant's argument that the Officer had broad discretion under section 58.22 to consider her personal circumstances before issuing the order.

The application for review was dismissed and the order to pay was affirmed.