OLRB 2001

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 benefit remittances.

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 Board deemed the facts in the application accepted and found the responding party liable for violating the collective agreement.

A hearing was scheduled solely to assess the quantum of damages.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, disputing the union's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit.

The majority of the Board found the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and ordered a representation vote to be taken and counted.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed when an employer gives such notice.

The applicant municipality filed an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 concerning collective bargaining issues resulting from a municipal amalgamation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board appointed a Board Officer pursuant to section 37(3) of the Act to meet with the parties and attempt to resolve the matters in dispute.

The Board directed the employer to post the decision in the workplace and provided instructions for any other bargaining agents or employees wishing to participate in the proceeding.

The applicant union sought a second representation vote and other remedies under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following employer intimidation during the initial vote.

The employer's president had threatened to shut down the company if the union was successful, resulting in no employees casting a ballot.

The Board found the employer violated sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Act.

The Board ordered a second representation vote and directed the employer to offer re-employment to the affected employees at the union's standard wage rate to remedy the intimidatory effect of the employer's statements.

The applicant filed an application under the Employment Standards Act against the responding parties.

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement.

Pursuant to section 19.1(5) of the Act, the Board terminated the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and the only remaining issue was the applicant's trade union status.

The Board previously found the applicant's initial submissions insufficient to establish status.

The applicant clarified that a second set of submissions had been filed, which referenced prior Board decisions finding the applicant to be a trade union.

The responding party employer objected to the applicant's request to amend its name on the application and argued the application should be dismissed due to potential confusion in the membership evidence.

The Board directed the applicant to file its constitution and by-laws, and allowed the responding party to make further submissions before making a final determination on trade union status and the name amendment.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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 of employees at North American Lumber Limited in Fort Frances.

The applicant trade 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 responding employer objected to the holding of a representation vote, raising jurisdictional arguments.

The Board ordered a representation vote to determine employee wishes regarding their collective representation, deferring the employer's jurisdictional arguments to the hearing of the matter.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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 Board found that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and directed a representation vote, with ballots for disputed maintenance employee positions to be segregated.

The Board received a request for reconsideration of its November 9, 2001 decision.

Because the previous decision directed that monies held in trust be paid out, the Board revoked that decision pending consideration of the request for reconsideration.

The applicant and responding party employee were directed to file any responding submissions within two days.

The intervenor requested an adjournment fifteen minutes prior to the scheduled consultation due to counsel's illness.

The applicant requested costs if the adjournment was granted, noting it was the third adjournment in two months.

The Board granted the adjournment but denied the request for costs, consistent with its jurisprudence.

A new date was set for the consultation.

The applicant withdrew its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicants requested that their application be withdrawn.

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

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing scheduled for May 10, 2001.

The Board granted the adjournment on consent and rescheduled the hearing to May 28, 2001.

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

The responding party trade union requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie violation of the Act.

The Board directed that the applicant be afforded an opportunity to respond to the union's motion before the Board disposes of it, and set a timeline for submissions.

The applicant union in one of two related certification applications requested that the matters be heard together and that an upcoming hearing date be adjourned due to counsel's unavailability.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, stating it would not delay the hearing of a certification application absent the consent and agreement of all parties.

The applicant 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 it appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

The Board also addressed a proposed clarity note regarding youth participants and directed that any disputed ballots be segregated.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of section 75 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding union requested that the Board dismiss the application without a hearing for failure to plead a prima facie case.

After reviewing the submissions, the Board declined to dismiss the application and referred the matter to the Registrar for a consultation.

The Board consented to an agreed schedule for the filing of materials in this matter, as set out in correspondence from the responding party's solicitor.

The responding party employer submitted a second late request for an adjournment of the hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that the request will be dealt with at the commencement of the scheduled hearing, if necessary.