OLRB 2001

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

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 to be true and found the responding party liable for violating the collective agreement by failing to pay appropriate wages and remit contributions.

A hearing was scheduled to assess damages.

The applicant requested to withdraw its applications against the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, allowing the matters to be withdrawn with leave of the Board, and cancelled the previously scheduled hearing dates.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether 40 per cent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit were not represented by a bargaining agent immediately before the changeover date, pursuant to section 23(5) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

As the necessary information was not available, the Board directed the employer to produce payroll records and scheduled a further hearing and representation vote.

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.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and cancelled previously set meeting and hearing dates.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding its handling of his termination grievance and a grievance for termination and severance pay.

The union brought preliminary motions to dismiss the application.

The Board found that the union's decision to withdraw the termination grievance was based on a reasonable assessment of its merits and the applicant's failure to communicate.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the termination grievance for failing to disclose a prima facie case, and dismissed the complaint regarding the severance pay grievance as premature because it had already been referred to arbitration.

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

The responding party sought to dismiss the application due to a failure to receive a copy prior to filing, which the Board denied as there was no prejudice.

The Board determined that three disputed individuals were employees in the bargaining unit and directed their ballots to be counted.

During the hearing, the Board applied the rule in Browne v. Dunn to preclude the applicant from calling evidence to contradict the responding party's witnesses without prior notice.

Ultimately, the representation vote did not result in more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast in favour of the applicant, and the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for withdrawing her grievance regarding disciplinary warnings.

The union requested that the application be dismissed without a consultation, arguing it did not disclose a prima facie case and was premature.

The Board declined to dismiss the application, noting that the withdrawn grievance included a final warning that was not adequately explained by the union's response, and that warnings must be grieved in a timely manner.

The application was directed to be processed in the normal course.

The applicant and the responding employer executed Minutes of Settlement regarding an application under the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application in accordance with section 69.1(5) of the Act.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment, noting that if no party requests to proceed within that time, the matters will be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support to order a representation vote.

However, the intervenor and responding party argued the application was untimely because the affected employees were already covered by an existing collective agreement between the intervenor and the County of Hastings, which they argued was the same employer.

Due to the dispute over the identity of the employer and the timeliness of the application, the Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending further order.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

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 certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union requested an order for production of documents and particulars from the responding party, Urtech Electric Inc., in relation to applications under sections 69, 1(4), and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding party to provide any objections or submissions regarding the production request within two days, after which the Board would determine the request.

The responding party employer requested an adjournment of five applications under the Employment Standards Act to accommodate its counsel's maternity leave.

All parties except one applicant consented to the extension.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting it was most efficient to hear the cases together and the majority of parties consented.

The matters were referred to the Registrar to be scheduled after March 11, 2002.

The Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 527 applied for reconsideration of a Board decision describing its bargaining unit, seeking to clarify a numerical limitation on the exclusion of Assistant Fire Chiefs.

The City of Greater Sudbury opposed the request, arguing the need for expedition and finality under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, finding that Local 527 failed to raise compelling submissions that could not reasonably have been advanced earlier during the initial hearing.

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

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the disbursement of the funds held in trust by the Director, with $2,250.00 to be paid to the employee, $2,262.56 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The 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 Director in trust to disburse the funds in accordance with the settlement, paying $5,267.68 to the employee and $3,732.32 to the employer, with the $1,000 administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The CAW and UFCW filed competing applications for certification regarding employees at Coca-Cola's new Brampton facility.

UFCW Local 175 claimed existing bargaining rights based on a collective agreement provision extending rights to new facilities within a 50-mile radius if staffed by its members.

The Board declined to immediately order a representation vote, finding that the fundamental issue of whether UFCW Local 175 already held bargaining rights for the facility needed to be determined first.

The matter was scheduled for further hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent registered and graduate nurses at the responding party's nursing home.

A representation vote was held, and more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

As no statements of desire to make representations were filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant and cancelled previously set hearing dates.

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.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Board dismissed the application and noted the potential application of the one-year bar under section 10(3) of the Act.

The union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer failed to make timely remittances to various health, welfare, and pension funds.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued a consent order declaring the employer bound by the collective agreement, finding a violation for unpaid remittances, and directing the employer to pay $15,372.65 in outstanding remittances and $1,471.17 in liquidated damages.