OLRB 2001

The applicant union applied for certification to represent security guard employees at the Royal Alexandra Theatre.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the certification and ordered a certificate to issue.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant employer and respondent union filed a joint application for the Board's consent to the early termination of their collective agreement.

Notice of the application was posted, and no objections were filed by any affected employees.

The Board granted consent to the early termination, noting that the current agreement would expire on November 4, 2001, and a newly ratified agreement would take effect on November 5, 2001.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding party employer and the intervenor union asserted that the application was untimely under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the timeliness issue within two days.

The applicant employer applied for 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 by the Director, with $923.08 paid to the employer, $923.08 paid to the employee, and the $184.62 administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the hearing of the matters scheduled for January 2002 sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board noted that unless either party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated without further notice.

Two individuals sought reconsideration of a 1999 Board decision finding they had engaged in and counselled an unlawful strike.

The request was filed nearly two years after the decision, well beyond the 20-day limit in Rule 96 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The applicants argued they had new evidence from a witness who recently came forward.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the significant passage of time was extremely prejudicial and compromised the Board's ability to render a fair decision.

In a certification application, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision to correct a clerical error in the Notice of Vote.

The final date for post-vote submissions was amended from January 2, 2002, to January 3, 2002.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

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

As a result, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The Board noted the potential application of section 10(3) of the Act to any subsequent application for certification filed within one year.

The applicant and the responding party reached an agreement on the identity of the legal counsel who will advance the termination grievance at arbitration.

As there were no further issues regarding the implementation of the Board's previous decision, the matter was terminated.

The applicant union filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On consent of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by settling her classification grievances without her consent.

The union had represented the applicant through mediation but ultimately concluded, based on legal advice, that her case was weak and accepted the employer's settlement offer over her objections.

The applicant argued that the union's constitution guaranteed her the right to advance her grievances to arbitration.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's decision to settle was based on a reasonable assessment of the merits and did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The Board also noted that section 74 regulates the union's representation vis-à-vis the employer, not internal union affairs or constitutional obligations.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a breach of the union's duty of fair representation under section 74.

The responding union and intervenor employer requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board declined to vary its earlier decision to proceed to consultation, noting that the intervenor's submissions could be dealt with at that time.

The applicant union brought an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint.

Several responding parties sought to bring a motion to dismiss the unfair labour practice complaint against them on the basis that it did not make out a prima facie case.

The Board directed that the prima facie motion be heard in writing and set a schedule for submissions.

The parties agreed on the voting status of one individual, and the Board directed the counting of the ballots from the representation vote, deferring the determination of the status of two other individuals.

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 not less than forty percent in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

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 matter would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The applicant trade union, CAW-Canada, 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, SEIU Local 210.

The Board ordered a representation vote to determine whether CAW-Canada should succeed SEIU as the collective bargaining agent for the employees in the bargaining unit at Windsor Regional Hospital.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision amending the style of cause to reflect the correct name of the responding party employer, Diversicare VI Limited Partnership Inc. c.o.b.

Chelsey Park Retirement Community – Apartment Complex/Retirement Home.

The Board also amended its previous decision of July 25, 2001, to reflect that the employer had already filed its response.

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

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

The applicant filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On consent of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.