Ontario Labour Relations Board

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

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

The Labourers' International Union of North America applied for certification, and the Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27 intervened and filed a section 96 application alleging unfair labour practices.

The Board considered whether to inquire into the voter eligibility of three individuals after the parties changed their positions following the representation vote.

Applying Martha's Garden Inc., the Board held it would inquire into their status because the parties merely adopted each other's previously articulated positions.

The Board also found the section 96 application disclosed a prima facie case of a conspiracy between the applicant union and the employer, directing it to proceed alongside the certification application.

The applicant brought an application for decertification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board directed the Registrar to set the matter down for two days of hearing to determine the challenges to three individuals whose status as members of the bargaining unit was disputed.

The applicant was directed to ensure the attendance of one specific individual, and the parties were directed to confer regarding the other two.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted an extension of time for the responding union to file its response to the application.

The deadline was extended to August 24, 2001.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer failed to make timely remittances to various health, welfare, and pension funds.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement and a Consent Order.

The employer acknowledged it was bound by the collective agreement and admitted to the violation.

The Board issued a consent order directing the employer to pay $25,644.49 to the union forthwith.

The applicant employee requested a review of an Officer's decision not to issue an Order under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant subsequently forwarded Minutes of Settlement and Release relating to a human rights matter, which included a release of any claims arising out of her employment, including claims under the Act.

The Board treated the document as a request to withdraw the application and granted leave to withdraw.

The applicant requested an extension of time to request that his duty of fair representation complaint be scheduled for consultation, following a previous decision adjourning the matter sine die.

The Board granted the request and extended the deadline to November 26, 2001, failing which the application would be deemed terminated.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by withdrawing his grievance regarding his termination for alleged theft.

The Board found that the applicant failed to plead a prima facie case, as he merely disagreed with the union's decision and did not assert any facts showing arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application under the Employment Standards Act.

The parties subsequently filed Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant filed an application under the Employment Standards Act.

The parties filed Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant claimed the union acted in bad faith when its representative withdrew shortly before a Workplace Safety and Insurance Board hearing and subsequently failed to provide a representative from the automotive sector for an appeal.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the withdrawal was at the applicant's request due to a conflict of interest allegation, and the union had taken steps to protect the applicant's rights.

The Board also held that the applicant did not have the right to dictate which union representative would handle his file.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application via correspondence.

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 rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor union, SEIU Local 268.

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 that CAW-Canada acquired the collective bargaining rights of SEIU Local 268 by transfer of jurisdiction for the specified bargaining unit.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant union brought an application for certification and a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding a representation vote and the employment status of an individual.

The responding party's request for reconsideration was deemed moot.

The Board found no reason to exclude two individuals from the list of persons whose status was in dispute, noting the responding party was arguing alternative legal characterizations rather than alternative facts.

The Board directed the Registrar to list both applications for a two-day hearing and ordered the applicant to file particulars.

The employer filed an application for review of an Order to Pay outside the 45-day period prescribed by section 68(3) of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board notified the employer that the application appeared untimely and invited a request for an extension of time.

No request was received.

The Board dismissed the application as untimely and directed the payout of monies held in trust.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a Board decision regarding the timing of a representation vote.

The Board reviewed the alleged circumstances and found nothing unusual enough to warrant deviating from its standard practice of holding representation votes within five days of the application.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party employer breached the collective agreement by employing non-union workers and failing to pay them union rates.

The responding party failed to file a response.

The Board proceeded by default, deemed the facts in the application accepted, and ordered the responding party to pay $66,363.84 in damages and $214.00 for filing fees.

The applicant, Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers, requested to withdraw its application against Heaton Sanitation Ltd. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union filed a request for reconsideration and a related employer/sale of business application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board deferred the request for reconsideration until the determination of the related employer/sale of business application, directing that both be determined by the same panel.

The Board also extended the time for the responding parties to file their response to the related employer application.