OLRB 2001

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The responding party employer failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

Based on the application and membership evidence, the Board found that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of National Car Rental (Canada) Inc. at a specific Toronto location.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, based on a previous Registrar's certificate.

Having found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the agreed-upon bargaining unit were members of the union, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

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

The application appeared to be filed outside the 45-day time limit.

However, the applicant provided evidence that the Order to Pay was actually issued a month later than the date marked on it.

The Board accepted this evidence, found the application to be timely, and referred the matter to the Registrar.

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

The responding employee subsequently withdrew his claim and requested that the funds held in trust be returned to the employer.

The Ministry of Labour objected, arguing that an employee cannot withdraw a claim after an Order to Pay has been issued and that the administration fee cannot be refunded without a hearing or a request to the Director.

The Board held that the funds could not be returned without the consent of all parties, including the Ministry, and directed the parties to advise whether they consented to allowing the application for review.

In a union certification application, the Board had previously ordered a representation vote.

The responding employer filed a reconsideration request.

Given the urgency and the merits of the request, the Board varied its previous decision, ordering that the ballots cast in the upcoming representation vote be individually segregated and the ballot box sealed pending a final decision on the reconsideration request.

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

The Ministry of Labour advised the Board that the employer's cheque for payment of the order in trust was returned by the bank.

Under section 68(7) of the Act, an application for review is not properly made unless the applicant pays the amount to the Director in trust.

Since the payment was not made within the 45-day time limit, the application was dismissed.

The applicant employer filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

The applicant provided a cheque to pay the order amount into trust, but the cheque was returned for insufficient funds.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for review because the applicant failed to comply with the statutory requirement under section 68(7) of the Employment Standards Act to pay the amount of the order into trust within the time limit.

The applicant sought review of an employment standards order but failed to submit payment of the required funds in accordance with section 68(7) of the Employment Standards Act.

Consequently, the Board terminated the application.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file particulars.

The other parties agreed to an extension to June 11, 2001, but the applicant requested July 6, 2001.

The Adjudicator/Referee granted the extension to July 6, 2001, to forestall further correspondence and mindful of the reasons for the request.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.

The application was filed beyond the 45-day statutory time limit.

Despite being invited to provide reasons for the delay, the applicant failed to address the untimeliness or offer any basis for an extension.

The Board dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant filed an application for review of an employment standards officer's decision approximately two weeks after the deadline.

She sought an extension of time, outlining her diligent efforts to obtain the proper forms and pursue the matter on her own behalf.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the extension of time and referred the matter to the Registrar for processing.

The applicants filed duty of fair representation complaints against the union regarding the settlement of group classification grievances.

The union and the intervenor employer requested that the applications be dismissed without a hearing for failing to state a prima facie case.

The Board found that while the union provided a detailed and plausible explanation for its conduct, the applicants' allegations had enough substance to preclude dismissing the applications at the preliminary stage.

The request to dismiss was denied and the matters were referred for consultation.

The applicants sought a review of an employment standards officer's decision denying their claim on the basis that they were covered by a collective agreement.

The Ministry of Labour had no record of a claim for one of the applicants.

The Board held that it cannot entertain an application for review when no claim has been filed, and ordered that her application be terminated unless she provides a reason within 10 days.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer breached section 72 of the Labour Relations Act by permitting inequalities in pay grades and inaccurate job descriptions, and that the union breached section 74.

The employer requested dismissal of the section 72 allegations for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the section 72 complaint, finding that the applicant pleaded no facts suggesting the employer's actions were taken because she was exercising rights under the Act.

The section 74 duty of fair representation complaint against the union was permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed a request for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision 10 days outside the statutory 45-day appeal period.

The Board sent a letter inviting the applicant to request an extension of time and provide reasons for the delay.

The applicant did not respond.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file materials on consent of the responding party.

The Board granted the request, extending the applicant's filing date to December 21, 2001, and the responding party's filing date to January 7, 2002.

During a union certification representation vote, the Board Officer asked the employer's scrutineer to leave the room to discuss segregated ballots with the union scrutineer.

The employer objected to the vote results, arguing that leaving the unsealed ballot box in the presence of the union scrutineer and the Officer was inherently flawed and raised procedural concerns.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding that the presence of the Board Officer guaranteed the integrity of the process and that no allegations of impropriety were made against the Officer.

The applicant union sought to withdraw three matters against the responding employer following a Memorandum of Agreement signed by the parties.

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

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 under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be taken and directed that any ballots cast by individuals whose inclusion in the bargaining unit is in dispute be segregated.

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

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 appeared to be members.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency, with the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit to be made following the vote.