OLRB 2001

The applicant, Carpenters District Council of Ontario, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, withdrew its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board against the responding parties.

The applicant filed an employee appeal under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act five days late.

The applicant's representative explained that they mistakenly believed the deadline was 45 business days rather than 45 calendar days.

Finding minimal prejudice to the Ministry and the responding employer, the Board granted the extension of time and deemed the application timely.

The applicants, directors of a corporation, sought clarification regarding notices of hearing for their applications to review orders to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The Board confirmed that both applications would be heard together.

The Board declined to rule in advance on the consequences of the respondents' potential failure to attend the hearing, leaving that determination to the panel assigned to hear the matter.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than 50% 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 dismissed the application.

The employer requested the Board to issue a decision incorporating a Memorandum of Agreement regarding damages for two employees, following a previous finding of unfair labour practices.

The union, which was the applicant in the original proceedings but had since been decertified, opposed the request and was not a party to the agreement.

The Board declined to issue a consent award, noting that the agreement was signed by only one party to the application, and remained seized with respect to issues of remedy.

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

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding party employer.

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

The settlement required the employer to pay $5,000 to the union, permitted a second representation vote, mandated a paid union meeting with employees, and required the posting of a Notice to Employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the responding party union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union filed a response requesting that the application be dismissed for delay, prematurity, and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board directed the applicant to file a reply to the union's preliminary arguments and to identify which facts in the response she agrees or disagrees with within 10 days.

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 that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

As the applicant is not an affiliated bargaining agent, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among all unrepresented employees at work in the construction industry for the responding party in the County of Lambton.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to remit contributions.

The employer failed to file a response or notice of intent to defend.

The Board deemed the facts in the application accepted, found the employer violated the collective agreement, and ordered payment of damages and costs.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor union.

Upon examining the application and membership evidence, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite forty percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken to allow eligible employees to choose between the applicant and the intervenor.

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

The responding party employer and an intervenor union objected to the application and requested that any representation vote be sealed.

The Board ordered a representation vote to determine whether the employees wished to be represented by the applicant or the responding party trade union.

The Board declined to seal the ballot box, noting that employee wishes are properly considered in a successor rights application.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging the union refused to grieve his termination and denial of accommodation.

The union filed a detailed response.

The Board declined to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case at this stage.

Instead, the Board directed the applicant to file a statement detailing his disagreement with the union's response and providing support for his allegations of termination and sought accommodation.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the consent adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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 found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate.

A certificate was ordered to issue to the applicant.

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, the parties agreed to all outstanding issues.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant, Smart Kleen Cleaners, requested to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, regarding his termination.

The union requested that the Board dismiss the application without a hearing, asserting that an agreement was reached for the applicant's return to work upon providing a medical certificate.

However, the employer maintained that the applicant's employment remained terminated.

The Board declined to dismiss the application without a hearing and directed that the matter be set down for a consultation.

The applicant employer filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The employer failed to make the requisite payment in trust within the statutory deadline and failed to provide a requested breakdown of statutory deductions.

The Ministry of Labour submitted that the application was untimely and did not comply with sections 68(3)(a) and 68(7) of the Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for review due to the employer's failure to make the required payment and provide the requested information.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees were in opposition to the union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The Board cancelled previously set meeting and hearing dates and directed the destruction of ballots after 30 days.