OLRB 2001

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and 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 of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

The applicant sought a declaration under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 that the Administration Officer is not an employee under the Act.

The responding party withdrew its objection to the exclusion request.

The Board granted the application and declared that the Administration Officer is not an employee pursuant to the Act.

The applicant union filed an application for certification in the construction industry.

Following a Board decision ordering a representation vote, an intervenor union claimed it already represented the employees in the proposed bargaining unit, rendering the application untimely.

The Board directed that the timeliness issue be determined first at the upcoming hearing, and referred the matter to the Registrar to set a hearing date.

The applicant requested a correction to the Board's decision of May 25, 2001, which contained an error regarding a filing deadline.

The Board amended paragraph 17 of the previous decision to direct the responding party to deliver and file its response and documents by June 19, 2001, instead of July 19, 2001.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

Several employees objected to the results, complaining about the short notice period between notification and the vote.

The Board dismissed the objections, noting that the Labour Relations Act requires a vote within five days of the application and there is no requirement for the union to provide advance notice or hold information meetings.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The applicant filed an application against the union.

On consent of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations 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.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision one day past the deadline.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found it appropriate to extend the time for filing the application to November 14, 2001, making it timely, and referred the matter to the Registrar to be processed.

The applicant brought an employment practices application against the responding parties.

Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement reached between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application terminated.

The applicant trade union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A representation vote was held, and a majority of the employees voted in favour of the applicant.

The responding party did not file a response or participate, but later submitted that the voters were not its employees, which the Board rejected as untimely.

The Board granted the applicant's request to amend the responding party's name and issued certificates to the applicant for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector, as well as all other sectors in the specified geographic areas.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions regarding ongoing applications involving Supply Chain Express Inc. and Wilson's Truck Lines Limited.

The employer had commenced interprovincial trucking operations and argued its labour relations were now governed by federal legislation.

Noting an impending Divisional Court judicial review hearing on the constitutional jurisdiction issue, the Board directed that hearings would resume regardless of the outcome.

The Board instructed the parties to prepare submissions on how a potential finding of federal jurisdiction by the Canada Industrial Relations Board would affect the Board's ability to adjudicate alleged past violations of the provincial Labour Relations Act, 1995, and the availability of remedies.

The applicants requested to withdraw their applications regarding occupational health and safety matters.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, noting the applications were withdrawn and the suspensions of the previously granted orders were revoked.

The applicant union filed applications under sections 43 and 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration pursuant to section 43(2).

The Board also consented to adjourn the section 96 application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file a response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to July 14, 2001.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, alleging the responding party knowingly violated the collective agreement by employing non-union workers.

The responding party failed to attend the hearing.

The Board accepted the union's uncontested evidence, found a knowing violation, and ordered the responding party to pay $4,800 in damages, a $25,000 penalty pursuant to the collective agreement, and $749 in costs.

The applicant employer sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay $11,000 in unpaid wages and vacation pay to the respondent claimant.

The claimant argued she was entitled to an unconditional quarterly payment of $2,500 as part of her oral employment contract.

The employer contended the payments were a discretionary bonus conditional on the company's Toronto office becoming profitable.

The Board preferred the employer's evidence, finding the bonus was conditional on profitability, a condition that was never met.

The Board concluded the discretionary bonus did not fall under the definition of 'wages' in the Employment Standards Act and rescinded the Order to Pay.

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 in accordance with the settlement, with $477.88 returned to the employer, $285.00 paid to the employee, and the $100.00 administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant sought to terminate the responding party's bargaining rights and requested an adjournment due to a leave of absence, which was granted on consent.

The applicant also objected to Board Member G. McMenemy participating on the panel, alleging bias because of his past role as a union business representative.

The Board dismissed the objection, finding no actual bias or reasonable apprehension of bias, noting that Board members are appointed for their labour relations experience and take an oath of office to act impartially.

The applicant trade union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party disputed the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act, but failed to provide a list of employees.

The Board found the section 8.1 notice invalid, determined that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate, and directed a representation vote.

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

The responding party filed a notice under section 8.1, disputing its status as an employer in the construction industry.

The Board found that the applicant established the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with the ballot boxes sealed and ballots segregated pending the resolution of the responding party's status and any membership evidence issues.

The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the matters would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed was made within that time.