OLRB 2001

The International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (IUBAC) asserted that the Brick and Allied Craft Union of Canada (BACU) and the Ontario Provincial Conference (OPC) failed to comply with a previous Board direction.

The Board directed BACU and OPC to respond to the assertions by May 26, 2001, noting that the Board's orders are not self-executing and enforcement must be pursued by the parties under the Labour Relations Act.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing of the employment standards appeal.

The Board adjourned the matter to a date to be set by the Registrar.

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

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

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant filed an appeal of an inspector's order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act beyond the 30-day time limit and requested an extension.

The Ministry of Labour did not oppose the extension, but the union argued the Board lacked discretion to extend the time limit.

The Board held that section 61(1) of the Act is clear and there is no statutory provision or Board rule permitting an extension of time for appealing an inspector's order.

The appeal and the request for suspension of the order were dismissed as untimely.

The Board considered competing applications for certification by the CAW and UFCW, as well as a termination application and an unfair labour practice complaint regarding employees at Coca-Cola's Brampton facility.

Finding that both unions had demonstrated the appearance of at least 40% support in their proposed bargaining units, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine the employees' choice of bargaining agent.

The Board deferred determination of a section 8.1 issue raised by the employer regarding the bargaining unit size.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, ordering that the responding party shall have 10 days after the applicant files the ordered particulars, or 10 days after the Board determines no further particulars are required, to file its response.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that it appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with directions for segregating ballots of individuals in disputed positions, such as the chef.

The Board also found that the responding party's purported notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 was improper because it did not disagree with the number of employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A consultation was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear.

The responding party requested that the application be dismissed.

As the applicant bears the onus of proving the complaint, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit at Brisk-All Glass.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty per cent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The employer sought an application for review of an Order to Pay but failed to use the proper form.

The Board provided the correct forms and granted a 10-day extension to file properly.

The employer failed to submit the forms within the extended time limit.

The Board concluded the employer did not wish to proceed and terminated the matter.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party employer failed to make required health, welfare, and pension fund remittances.

The responding party did not appear at the hearing.

Based on the documentary and viva voce evidence, the Board found the employer violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $69,277.47 in damages, plus $214.00 in statutory costs.

The appellant, Guardian Tree Systems Inc., requested to withdraw its appeal against the responding parties, Eric Theissen, Inspector, and the Ministry of Labour.

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

The applicant alleged that the trade union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to pursue compensation for the period between her agreed reinstatement date and the date of the arbitration award.

The Board exercised its discretion not to inquire further into the application, finding that the union did not violate the Act by waiting for the arbitrator to issue his award, and noting that the applicant herself took no steps to return to work or contact the union during that period.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights of a predecessor trade union.

Following a previous decision, the responding employer objected to the abridgement of time limits for filing responses, citing incomplete documentation.

The Board found no persuasive reasons to delay the representation vote and ordered the abridgement of time limits for filing responses and interventions.

The employer was directed to provide employee names and proposals for the representation vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued an amended decision regarding a representation vote.

Paragraph 16 of the April 17, 2001 decision was revoked and substituted to ask voters whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor in their employment relations with the responding party.

The responding party was directed to post the amended notice.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation.

The Board had previously directed the applicant to address whether there was a labour relations purpose in inquiring further into the complaint, given that it was rooted in events from 1993.

The applicant's submissions confirmed that all her complaints stemmed from a 1993 union meeting.

The Board dismissed the complaint without a hearing, finding it was largely untimely and that there was no labour relations purpose in inquiring into the timely elements as they were not severable from the untimely aspects.

The applicant, Service Employees International Union, Local 528, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Winrac Development Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision to correct its previous decision dated October 29, 2001.

The correction provides the full text of Article 8.2 of the essential services agreement, which outlines the Employer's right to require essential/emergency services workers to perform more than 36 1/4 hours in a week and the Association's right to refer disputes regarding abuse of this right to the Board.