Ontario Labour Relations 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 no request to proceed is made.

In an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the Sault Ste.

Marie Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 529, requested an extension of time to file a response.

The Board granted the request, extending the deadline to December 21, 2001, noting that the hearing had not yet been scheduled and the Labour Relations Officer's report was not due until January 2002.

The applicant, a former professional hockey goaltender, filed an application alleging the respondent union violated its duty of fair representation by withdrawing his grievance regarding unpaid salary.

The respondent and intervenor raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant's employment was entirely in the United States and lacked a substantial connection to Ontario.

The fact that the union's head office is in Ontario did not confer jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding his termination from employment.

The union requested that the Board defer processing the application and extend the time limits for filing a response, as it was currently processing a grievance challenging the termination.

The Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions addressing the union's deferral request before making a determination, and relieved the union and employer from filing responses in the interim.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding unpaid contributions.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement settling the matter.

The Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement, which included declarations that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement, had violated it, and was ordered to pay $17,111.92 in damages for outstanding contributions.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, requested to withdraw its application against Stellarc Precision Bar Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

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 numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

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

The applicant union requested a pre-hearing order compelling the responding parties to provide a statement of all material facts they intended to rely on at the upcoming hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, noting that the obligation to plead material facts is already set out in the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board observed that it could not know in advance what facts the responding parties might wish to prove, as they might choose not to call evidence at all.

The Board left it open to the applicant to raise any alleged failure to comply with the Rules as a preliminary matter at the hearing.

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

The responding employee subsequently withdrew his claim and requested that the funds held in trust be returned to the employer.

The Ministry of Labour objected, arguing that an employee cannot withdraw a claim after an Order to Pay has been issued and that the administration fee cannot be refunded without a hearing or a request to the Director.

The Board held that the funds could not be returned without the consent of all parties, including the Ministry, and directed the parties to advise whether they consented to allowing the application for review.

The applicant union filed a grievance referral and a related employer/sale of business application against the responding parties.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement agreeing that the responding companies constitute one employer under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and are bound by the applicable collective agreements.

The Board issued consent orders and declarations reflecting the settlement and granted leave to withdraw the grievance referral.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer after terminating a pregnant bartender because the employer found her pregnancy aesthetically unpleasant and bad for business.

The Board found that terminating an employee because she is eligible for pregnancy leave violates section 44 of the Employment Standards Act.

The Board declined to defer the matter to the Human Rights Commission, noting that the Act and the Code have overlapping jurisdiction regarding the protection of pregnant employees.

The employer's appeal was dismissed and the Director of Employment Standards was ordered to pay the employee.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Board regarding whether the employer was a 'hospital' under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The applicant union subsequently advised the Board that the parties had settled a collective agreement and requested the Board not to deal further with the reference.

The Board noted that it had not been instructed by the Minister to abandon the reference, and advised the parties to request the Minister to withdraw it.

The applicant union applied for the Board's consent to extend its trusteeship over Local 2519 pursuant to section 89(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant indicated that no members of the local were willing to serve on the executive.

The Board directed the applicant to provide notice of the application and the Board's decision to all affected bargaining unit members, and set a deadline for any objections to be filed before giving further consideration to the application.

The applicant employer applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act following the transfer of land ambulance services from three hospitals to the applicant.

The parties agreed there was a sale of part of a business and that a representation vote should be ordered.

The only issue in dispute was the appropriate bargaining unit description.

The employer and SEIU proposed a traditional service unit, while CUPE proposed an ambulance paramedic only unit.

The Board found that the broader service unit proposed by the employer was the more appropriate unit, as it preserved the status quo of the predecessor employers and aligned with the preference for broader-based bargaining structures.

The applicant referred a construction industry grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement.

The Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement, had violated it, and ordered the payment of $10,000 in damages according to an agreed schedule.

Two trade unions, UFCW Canada and CAW-Canada, filed displacement applications for certification regarding employees at Sobeys.

The responding party and the incumbent union, District 2-A, objected to the applications, raising issues regarding crossover membership evidence and the appropriate bargaining unit, particularly concerning part-time employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found an appearance of membership support for both applicants and ordered a representation vote to proceed quickly.

To accommodate the unresolved issues, the Board directed that the ballot boxes be sealed and that ballots be segregated by location and employment status (full-time versus part-time).

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party, McMaster University, disputed that it was the employer of the affected employees and filed a section 8.1 notice, but failed to provide the required employee lists.

The Board found the section 8.1 notice invalid and determined the applicant had established sufficient membership support.

The Board directed a representation vote for the proposed bargaining unit, with the ballot box to be sealed pending a determination on the identity of the true employer.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees filed an application for certification to represent a bargaining unit of clerical employees of the Corporation of the Town of Rainy River.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Having determined that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union, the Board ordered a representation vote to be held.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, giving employees the choice between the applicant and the incumbent union.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her duty of fair representation complaint against the union due to extreme delay.

The events giving rise to the complaint occurred over four years prior to the application.

The Board found that the applicant did not introduce new evidence or raise issues that would warrant reconsidering the previous decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.