Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of 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 resolved all outstanding issues.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant union for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application in Board File No. 2571-00-R following the conclusion of Minutes of Settlement between the parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant union, CAW-Canada, applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the bargaining rights of the predecessor union, SEIU Local 210.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of CAW-Canada, the Board granted the application and declared CAW-Canada the bargaining agent for the specified employees of Sodexho Marriott Services.

The applicant union filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 against the responding party employer.

Prior to a hearing, the applicant advised the Board by letter that all matters at the workplace had been resolved.

The Board construed the correspondence as a request for leave to withdraw the application and granted the request, withdrawing the application with leave of the Board.

The applicant, who had a commercial relationship providing skipping workshops to schools, alleged that the Catholic Board banned him from its property in retaliation for his filing an unfair labour practice complaint against the neighbouring Public Board.

The Board held that the reverse onus under section 96(5) of the Labour Relations Act did not apply because the applicant was not an employee of the Catholic Board.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to adduce direct evidence that the Catholic Board's decision was motivated by his complaint against the Public Board.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

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

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

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the responding party was deemed to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the employer violated the collective agreements, ordered payment of $22,757.27 plus interest, directed the posting of a $4,000 bond, and ordered reimbursement of the filing fee.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay regarding her termination, which she alleged was due to pregnancy.

The Ministry of Labour and the employer argued the appeal should be dismissed because the parties had previously signed a settlement agreement.

The applicant claimed she was misled into signing the agreement due to language barriers and misrepresentations by the Officer.

The Board found that the applicant had the assistance of a friend for interpretation, was not misled by the Officer, and understood that the settlement disposed of her entire claim under the Employment Standards Act.

The application for review was dismissed.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found the numerical difference was not significant and directed a representation vote.

Board Member J.A. Ronson dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed.

The applicants filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by dropping their grievances regarding seniority and lines of progression.

The employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing under Rule 46.

The Board found the applicant failed to plead any facts suggesting the union's decision was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

Furthermore, the lead applicant did not appear to be personally affected and failed to provide authorization to represent the others.

The application was dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party employer disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote and have it counted.

A representation vote was directed.

Board Member J.A. Ronson dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed.

The applicant applied 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 and that not less than forty percent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and declined the responding party's request to seal the ballot box.

The applicant union sought to suspend an inspector's order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act requiring that brackets supporting electrical cable trays be installed by certified electricians or registered apprentices.

The applicant argued the work was structural and fell within the ironworkers' trade, characterizing the issue as a jurisdictional dispute rather than a safety concern.

The Ministry of Labour did not oppose the suspension.

Applying the Hamilton-Wentworth factors, the Board found that suspending the order would not endanger worker safety and that the applicant's members were prejudiced by being prevented from working.

The Board suspended the order pending the disposition of the appeal.

The responding party objected to the applicant's late filing of particulars and sought an immediate pre-hearing ruling to exclude them.

The Board directed the applicant to file written submissions in response and deferred any outstanding issues regarding the admissibility of the particulars to the scheduled hearing.

The applicant union, CAW-Canada, applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor union, SEIU Local 210, with respect to a bargaining unit at Windsor Regional Hospital.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of CAW-Canada, the Board granted the application.

The Board declared CAW-Canada the successor trade union and noted that SEIU Local 210 is no longer the bargaining agent for the unit.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding a grievance.

The Board previously sought a response from the employer regarding a request to refer the grievance to arbitration, but the decisions were sent to an incorrect address.

The Board issued a procedural direction extending the time for the employer to reply by three weeks.

The employer sought production of documents from the applicant's spouse, a non-party.

Following an adjourned hearing where the non-party objected to production, the Board directed submissions.

After receiving a letter from the non-party indicating she may not have received the Board's previous decision directing submissions, the Board rescinded its prior decision and granted her 30 days to file further submissions regarding the production issue.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union filed applications against Northern Cables Inc. Following correspondence from the applicant's counsel, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the applications.

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.