Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicants failed to make submissions in response to the responding party's request to dismiss the application, despite being provided the opportunity to do so.

As a result, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and ordered the destruction of the ballots cast in the representation vote.

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, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

In an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board previously ordered a representation vote.

After the responding employer refused delivery of the decision and Notice of Vote by courier, the Board directed a Labour Relations Officer to attend the employer's premises to properly post the documents for the affected employees.

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from the non-party indicating she may not have received the Board's previous decision directing submissions, the Board rescinded its prior decision and granted her 30 days to file further submissions regarding the production issue.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 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 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 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, 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 trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for painters and painters' apprentices employed by the responding party.

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 for the industrial, commercial, and institutional sector in Ontario, and for all other sectors in the County of Simcoe and the District Municipality of Muskoka.

The employer appealed an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay, arguing that the employee had quit and was therefore not entitled to termination pay.

The employee contended that he was fired after a dispute over a new position and working conditions.

The Board found that the employee did not form the subjective intent to resign and that the employer had forced the alleged resignation.

The Board concluded that the employee was terminated and upheld the Order to Pay.

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

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

The Iron Workers proposed that two matters be heard together, which the Operating Engineers supported.

However, the parties in one of the matters agreed to adjourn it sine die.

Consequently, the Board declined to hear the matters together.

The remaining matter was referred to the Manager, Field Services, for the appointment of a Labour Relations Officer, and the other was adjourned sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural direction in a grievance referral, granting the responding party an extension of time to file its response by August 20, 2001.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine whether Carleton Place Manor is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The facility provides residential accommodation, meals, and nursing care to elderly residents.

The Board found that the facility provides observation, care, and treatment to its aged residents, making it a 'home for the aged' and therefore a 'hospital' under the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace a rival union as the bargaining agent for trim carpenters, and filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging intimidation and coercion by a former business manager of the rival union during the representation vote campaign.

The responding parties moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the complaint against the employer, finding no allegations of wrongdoing against it, and dismissed the section 72 allegations against the former manager and his company as they were not the employer.

However, the Board found a prima facie case that the former manager and the rival union breached section 76 by allegedly threatening that contractors whose employees chose the applicant union would be squeezed out of the industry, and directed a hearing on those allegations.

The applicant filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Based on the agreement of the parties, the Board extended the deadline for the responding party to file a response to August 16, 2001.

The responding party requested particulars of the circumstances of members affected by the conduct alleged in the application.

The Board previously directed the applicant to advise if it objected to filing the particulars.

The applicant did not file any submissions or objections.

The Board ordered the applicant to provide the requested particulars within two weeks.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

Based on the application and membership evidence, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

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

The Board notified the employer that the application was not filed on the correct form and provided a ten-day extension to file properly.

The employer failed to submit the required forms within the extended deadline.

Consequently, the Board assumed the employer no longer wished to pursue the application and terminated the matter.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The claimant did not appear at the hearing.

The employer admitted owing certain funds but disputed the amount awarded for two hours of training.

The Board varied the Order to Pay, finding that the training amount should not have been granted, and ordered the remaining wages and vacation pay to be paid to the claimant.