OLRB 2001

The applicant requested to withdraw its application via correspondence.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification.

The applicant trade union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it had acquired the collective bargaining rights of the responding party trade union.

A representation vote was held, and more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the responding party trade union.

The Board declared that the applicant had not acquired the bargaining rights and dismissed the successor rights application.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicant union and responding employer both submitted that the Board made an inadvertent error in its previous decision by failing to incorporate their full agreement regarding the bargaining unit description.

The Board granted the application for reconsideration and amended its previous decision to include the correct bargaining unit description and clarity note.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The responding employer did not file a response, did not appear at the Regional Certification meeting, and did not file representations or status disputes after the vote.

As there was no dispute to be heard and the single segregated ballot would not affect the outcome, the Board cancelled the tentatively scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to pursue a grievance regarding her mandatory retirement at age 65.

The applicant's former union lost representation rights following a municipal amalgamation, and the responding union voluntarily took over her file despite having no legal obligation to do so.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union acted reasonably in obtaining a legal opinion, securing a settlement offer, and weighing the applicant's interests against those of the broader bargaining unit facing significant downsizing.

The parties requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing for a construction grievance and an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment, directed that both matters be set down for a future hearing date, and ordered the refund of a hearing fee paid in error by the employer.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement settling the dispute, which included an admission of a collective agreement violation and an agreement to compensate an employee for 32 hours of wages.

The Board issued consent orders, declarations, and directions in accordance with the parties' agreement.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing because the Crown requested that information pertaining to pending criminal charges against the claimants not be released, and because necessary documentary evidence was in the possession of the police and Crown Attorney.

The Ministry of Labour consented to the adjournment, and the claimants did not comment.

The Board granted the adjournment sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification naming Magnum Homes and/or West Star Construction Group Ltd. as the responding party.

Magnum Homes responded that it subcontracted the work to Westar Carpentry Ltd. The applicant attempted to add Westar Carpentry Ltd. as a responding party and submitted amended certificates of delivery, but failed to properly serve the correct documents within the required timeframe.

The Board dismissed the application as fundamentally flawed due to the lack of proper notice and service on the actual employer.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of service employees at Brockville General Hospital.

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 granted certification and ordered a certificate to issue.

The applicant union filed two applications for certification in the construction industry.

The responding party employer failed to file a timely response in one application but asserted in both that it had no employees in the bargaining unit on the application dates.

The Carpenters union intervened.

The Board dismissed the applicant's objection to the employer's participation despite the late response, finding no prejudice.

The Board also found the employer's section 8.1 notice irrelevant since it claimed to have zero employees.

The Board referred the remaining issues, including the intervenor's standing and the employment status of the workers, to a hearing.

In a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Ontario Labour Relations Board determined during a consultation that it would be useful to take a view of the actual work in dispute performed at the Budd plant in Kitchener.

The Board directed that a view of the disputed work take place and scheduled a further consultation in the event the matter was not resolved.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board cancelled the hearing dates for October 10 and 11, 2001, and rescheduled the matters for November 22 and 23, 2001.

The Board declined a request by the applicant union to adjourn one of the files without the consent of all parties, directing that the issue could be raised with the assigned panel if not resolved prior to the hearing.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, and with no representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the Sexual Assault Crisis Centre of Windsor Essex County.

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

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the disbursement of the funds held in trust in accordance with the settlement, with $460.00 paid to the employee, $457.37 returned to the employer, and the $100.00 administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of Westco Security Services Corporation.

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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.