Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of stationary engineers and operators employed by the responding party.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that it appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support to order a representation vote, despite the employer filing revocation letters and raising issues with certain membership cards.

The Board ordered a representation vote but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending resolution of the employer's section 8.1 notice and disputes over the inclusion of certain supervisory positions in the bargaining unit.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for July 30, 2001.

With no one appearing on behalf of the responding party, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the matter to August 13, 2001.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote in which more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued certificates to the applicant for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector in the Province of Ontario, and for all other sectors in the Counties of Essex and Kent, pursuant to section 160(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

The union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer.

The parties reached a settlement agreement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer, agreeing to a second representation vote and the termination of the unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement, directing an additional representation vote under section 111(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and terminating the unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for July 30, 2001.

With no one appearing on behalf of the responding party, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the hearing to August 13, 2001.

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.

Following a previous decision, the responding employer objected to the abridgement of time limits for filing responses, citing incomplete documentation.

The Board found no persuasive reasons to delay the representation vote, noted the applicant had since provided the application to the employer, and ordered the abridgement of time limits for filing responses and interventions.

The applicant municipality applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board following a sale of a business from the predecessor Public Utilities Commission.

The Board considered whether to direct a representation vote between two responding trade unions.

The Board declined to order a representation vote under section 69(8) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, noting the wide disparity in bargaining unit representation (one union represented over 86% of employees, while the other represented less than 14%).

The Board also noted the parties' agreement that the applicant is bound to the predecessor's collective agreement.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file its response to the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and extended the filing deadline to August 15, 2001.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed well after the 45-day statutory time limit.

The applicant failed to respond to the Registrar's letters requesting reasons for the delay or a breakdown of deductions.

The Board dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent certain employees of the Corporation of the Town of Ajax.

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 that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and ordered a representation vote, directing that the ballot box be sealed until the Board orders otherwise or the parties agree, due to uncertainty regarding whether forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

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.

Following a previous decision, the responding employer objected to the abridgement of time limits for filing responses, citing incomplete documentation.

The Board found no persuasive reasons to delay the representation vote and ordered the abridgement of time limits for filing responses and interventions.

The employer was directed to provide employee names and proposals for the representation vote.

The applicant, a director of a company, applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

The applicant had not paid the amount required by the Order to the Director in trust or provided an acceptable irrevocable letter of credit, arguing that an interim receiver held sufficient funds.

The Board held that under section 68(7) of the Employment Standards Act, it cannot proceed with a review unless the requisite payment or letter of credit is provided.

The Board directed the applicant to comply within 15 working days, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

As no one appeared on behalf of the responding party, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the hearing to August 13, 2001.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

As no one appeared on behalf of the responding party, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the hearing to a later date.

The applicant filed an application for review under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board previously directed the applicant to file a breakdown of statutory deductions by a specified date, warning that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the application.

The applicant failed to file the required breakdown.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application and left it to the Director to disburse the funds held in trust.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, but not more than 50% of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and noted the potential effect of section 10(3) of the Act on any subsequent application filed within one year.

The responding party Service Employees International Union, Local 204 requested an extension of time to file its response, with correspondence from the applicant.

The Board granted the extension, allowing SEIU and the other responding parties until August 17, 2001, to file their responses.

The responding party filed a late response to a certification application, indicating it was bound by a franchise agreement to respect a collective agreement but failing to attach it or provide contact details for the affected trade union.

The Board directed that the ballot box in the upcoming representation vote be sealed until further order and ordered the responding party to immediately provide the contact information for the trade union signatory to the collective agreement.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act against BBS Building Services Inc. During the hearings, it became clear that The Hudson Bay Company had an interest in the matter and could face liability.

The Board directed the applicant to file an amended application with sufficient particulars and serve it on both BBS and The Bay, adding The Bay as a responding party.

The Board also ordered that the evidence presented thus far be expunged and the case commence afresh.

The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matters will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.