OLRB 2001

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent security guards employed by the responding party, who were currently represented by another union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held to determine which union the employees wished to represent them.

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

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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The Board also defined the appropriate bargaining unit by agreement of the parties.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking to displace the intervenor union as the bargaining agent for a unit of construction workers.

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

Consequently, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it failed to properly process numerous harassment grievances and improperly settled his recall grievances without his consent.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the older harassment grievances due to the applicant's undue delay in bringing the application.

Regarding the recall and sick leave grievances, the Board found the union acted reasonably and not in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner.

The union had negotiated a settlement for the recall grievances after reasonably concluding it could not establish that work was available for the applicant given his medical restrictions.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay.

The parties reached a settlement where $6,000 of the $10,000 held in trust would be paid to the employee and $4,000 returned to the employer.

The employer indicated a desire to appeal the retention of the administrative fee.

The Board directed the payout of the trust funds according to the settlement and adjourned the matter sine die for up to one year to allow the employer to pursue the administrative fee issue if desired.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking unpaid remittances and liquidated damages.

The applicant filed the referral with the Board before delivering it to the responding party, contrary to Rule 155 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate (Form A-87) and did not attend a settlement meeting.

The applicant requested default judgment.

The Board declined to grant default judgment immediately due to the applicant's procedural irregularity and the inclusion of damages that arose after the referral was filed.

However, noting the responding party's failure to respond, the Board cancelled the scheduled hearing and extended the time for the responding party to file a Form A-87, warning that failure to do so would result in the matter being decided on the applicant's materials without a hearing.

The employer filed an Application for Review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board previously directed the employer to provide a breakdown of statutory deductions to account for the difference between the Order amount and the amount submitted to the Director.

The employer failed to provide the information.

The Board ordered the employer to provide the requested information by August 31, 2001, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicants applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board 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.

The Board found the application timely as no collective agreement had been made since certification.

Finding that not less than forty per cent of the employees expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The applicants sought to withdraw their application against the respondent union.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer and the affected employee reached a settlement agreement.

The Board ordered the funds held in trust to be disbursed according to the agreement and terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.

The Board revoked its previous decision dated October 2, 2001, after realizing that the ballots from a representation vote held on June 22, 2000, had not been counted.

The applicant union argued that the parties' Minutes of Settlement meant the vote results should be disregarded and the application terminated without consequences.

The Board rejected this, noting the Labour Relations Act limits discretion to disregard votes or simply terminate applications.

The Board directed the applicant to choose whether to count the ballots or withdraw the application, noting that either choice could trigger a statutory bar on future applications.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a prior Board decision but failed to deliver the request and the required Notice of Request for Reconsideration to the responding parties.

The Board directed that it would not consider the request until the documents were properly delivered and an amended Certificate of Delivery was filed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification and directed the employer to post copies of the decision.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued certificates to the union.

Pursuant to section 160(1) of the Act, one certificate was issued for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry in Ontario, and another for all other sectors in the County of Renfrew.

The applicant union requested an adjournment of its application against the responding party employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent academic staff at the University of Sudbury.

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

The employer raised issues regarding the conduct of the vote, but the Board found that even if all disputed votes were cast against the applicant, the union would still have majority support.

Accordingly, the Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

In a displacement application for certification, the intervenor claimed the application was untimely due to ongoing interest arbitration under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board directed the applicant and responding party to file submissions on the timeliness issue before deciding whether to hold a representation vote.

The applicant union brought a related employer application and an unfair labour practice complaint against several corporate respondents and two locals of the Carpenters' Union.

The respondents brought preliminary motions to dismiss the unfair labour practice complaint for failing to disclose a prima facie case and to strike portions of the related employer application for lack of particulars.

The Board found that the applicant lacked status to challenge the Carpenters' bargaining rights because it did not hold pre-existing bargaining rights for the employees in question, and that it had delayed in bringing the complaint.

The Board struck those portions of the complaint.

However, the Board declined to strike the related employer application, finding the pleadings sufficiently particularized given the nature of such applications where facts lie within the exclusive knowledge of the respondents.

The applicant union sought an interim certificate for a bargaining unit of employees at a grocery store.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description except for the inclusion of certain department managers, whom the responding party argued should be excluded under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the union's right to certification would not be affected by the ultimate decision on the disputed classifications, as more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in favour of the union regardless of the outcome.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 9(2) of the Act to issue an interim certificate pending the final resolution of the bargaining unit composition.

A corrigendum was later issued to correct the description of the disputed positions.