OLRB 2001

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 will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicant union applied to certify a bargaining unit of security guards employed by the responding party casino.

The employer objected under section 14 of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that a conflict of interest would result because the union admits non-guards to membership and the guards monitor other casino employees.

The Board found that while the guards' monitoring duties were significant, no conflict of interest would result because the union did not represent the other casino employees being monitored.

The employer's objection was dismissed and a certificate was issued to the union.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union and the employer requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the applicant's main complaints were directed at the employer, and the allegations against the union lacked sufficient detail to establish arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent performers employed by the responding party.

As the applicant had not previously established trade union status and there were multiple disputes regarding the bargaining unit composition, the employer's name, and the timeliness of the application, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered a representation vote to preserve the status quo.

The Board directed that the ballot box be sealed pending the resolution of the outstanding issues at a subsequent hearing.

The applicant salon sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer, which found that a former hair stylist was entitled to minimum wage for hours worked, including time spent waiting for customers, rather than just her commission.

The employer argued the claimant spent significant time on personal errands and treatments.

The Board found the employer failed to provide evidence supporting these allegations and affirmed that waiting time is deemed work performed under Regulation 325.

The application was dismissed and the Order to Pay was affirmed.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union, alleging inadequate representation during an arbitration regarding workplace harassment and defamation dating back to 1993.

The arbitrator had dismissed the grievance as untimely.

The Board raised concerns about the age of the allegations and whether there was any labour relations purpose in inquiring into the complaint.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions addressing why the matter should not be dismissed without a hearing.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file a reply.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to May 7, 2001.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and permitted the application to be withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The responding party was directed to post copies of the decision for affected employees.

The applicant trade 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 an affiliated bargaining agent.

Based on the membership evidence, the Board determined that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

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

The applicant filed a complaint alleging a violation of section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

At the commencement of the hearing, the Board raised the issue of whether the application disclosed a prima facie case.

The applicant's concerns related to the physical difficulty of his work and general road safety, rather than workplace safety under the Act.

Furthermore, the applicant quit his employment before raising safety concerns with external agencies, meaning no employer reprisal could have occurred.

The Board dismissed the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights but failed to file a Certificate of Delivery (Form A-81) verifying delivery to the union and employer, as required by the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board held that it could not process the application without the certificate and ordered that the matter would be deemed terminated if the certificate was not received within five days.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party trade union's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The Board declined the union's request to dismiss the application without a vote under subsection 63(16), deferring those allegations to a post-vote hearing.

A representation vote was ordered.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent paramedical and technical employees at the responding party hospital.

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 ordered a representation vote but directed that the ballot box be sealed, as it was not apparent that forty percent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

A dissenting Board member agreed that the ballot box should be sealed but emphasized that section 8.1 requires it unless the parties agree otherwise.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the Director of Employment Standards to pay out the funds held in trust to the claimant and the Government of Ontario.

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

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed was made within one year.

The applicant union filed an application against the Crown in Right of Ontario.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.

The applicants filed an application against the responding party union.

The application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act relating to nine employees.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order directing the disbursement of the $47,087.04 held in trust by the Director, distributing specific amounts to the employer, the individual employees, and the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the administration fee.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party failed to make required contributions to employee benefit trust funds.

The responding party failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board accepted the union's undisputed evidence and ordered the responding party to pay $20,985.92, which included outstanding remittances, liquidated damages, and the costs of processing the grievance.