OLRB 2001

The applicant sought leave to withdraw her application against the responding party union, with the hospital as an intervenor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act but failed to pay the required amount into trust, citing financial inability.

The Board held that under section 68(7) of the Act, it cannot proceed with the review unless the payment is made or an acceptable letter of credit is provided.

The Board granted the applicant 15 working days to make the payment and request an extension of time, failing which the application will be dismissed.

The appellant appealed an inspector's order under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

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

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application for certification after a representation vote was held and counted.

However, the applicant had previously signed a Certification Worksheet agreeing that the application would be dismissed.

The Board held that the parties were bound by the agreements in the Worksheet and dismissed the application.

The intervenor, SKD Company, requested that two applications involving the same parties and identical statements of facts be heard together.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and directed that the applications be consolidated and heard together.

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

The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the applications would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant trade union filed a complaint alleging the responding party trade union violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 due to overlapping jurisdictions in collective agreements with the same employer.

The responding party argued the application should be dismissed as there was no actual negative impact on the applicant's members.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the request to decline hearing the application before proceeding further.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and determined the appropriate bargaining unit based on the parties' agreement.

Finding that the applicant established sufficient membership support, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the employees in the voting constituency.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding employer and a rival union conspired to gerrymander the list of employees at work on the date of a certification application.

The responding parties requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board declined to dismiss the application, finding it raised an arguable case, but struck out certain scandalous and vexatious pleadings and directed the applicant to file a revised schedule providing specific particulars of the alleged conspiracy and statements.

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.

The parties agreed that the application would be determined by a representation vote.

The Board directed the parties to advise if they objected to abridging the time limit for filing responses and interventions to expedite the vote.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking to displace the intervenor as the bargaining agent for the responding party's employees.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with eligible voters asked to choose between the applicant and the intervenor.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act but failed to pay the ordered amount into trust as required by section 68.

The Board held that an application for review is not properly made unless the monies are paid into trust.

The Board directed that unless the applicant pays the amount in full and makes a proper request for an extension of time within 10 days, the application will be deemed terminated.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision ordering it to pay $248.80 in vacation pay to the responding employee.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the employer nor the employee attended.

The Ministry of Labour appeared.

As the employer brought forward no evidence to establish a basis for setting aside the Order to Pay, the Board dismissed the application and upheld the Order to Pay, directing the release of funds held in trust to the employee.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the matter was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

In an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the responding party requested further particulars of the allegations.

The Board directed the applicant to either provide submissions opposing the request or provide the requested particulars within ten days.

The union applied for certification to represent production and maintenance employees at the employer's facility.

Following a representation vote, the parties disputed whether two Shippers should be included in the bargaining unit and whether one of them exercised managerial duties.

The Board found the Shippers did not exercise managerial authority and shared a community of interest with the production unit, thus their ballots were counted.

The Board also ruled that a disputed ballot with overlapping pencil marks in the 'No' window was valid and not spoiled.

As the union did not receive more than fifty percent of the votes, the application for certification was dismissed.

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.

Based on the application material, the Board found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

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

The applicant unions filed an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

Following an officer's report that issues remained in dispute, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the parties to file briefs and documents outlining the disputed issues and facts.

The Board scheduled a consultation to hear representations and potentially render a final decision on the unsettled matters.

The employer was directed to post copies of the decision.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent registered nurses at a nursing home.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant to be a trade union and determined the appropriate bargaining unit based on the parties' agreement.

Finding that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were union members, the Board directed a representation vote to be held.

The Board issued a procedural direction in an application involving the applicant, the union, and the intervenor employer.

The responding party withdrew its objection regarding improper delivery, leading the Board to defer consideration of one file until the conclusion of the other pursuant to section 111(3)(b).

The Board ordered the intervenor to produce all records relating to the performance of work covered by the collective agreement on specific dates, and directed the Registrar to list the matter for a two-day hearing.