Ontario Labour Relations Board

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.

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 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.

The applicant union and responding employer entered into Minutes of Settlement regarding the arrangements for a second representation vote directed by the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board ordered the vote to take place on December 18, 2001, for a defined constituency of construction labourers.

The Board noted the agreed-upon voters list and the applicant's challenge to one individual's eligibility.

The applicants filed an application to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union argued the application was untimely under section 12(1) of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA), as no first collective agreement had been reached.

The employer argued the application was timely under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found the application untimely, holding that under section 12(1) of HLDAA, an application to terminate bargaining rights can only be made during the open period of a collective agreement, which had not yet occurred.

The Board directed a hearing on whether section 12(1) of HLDAA violates section 2(d) of the Charter.

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

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

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

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

As the parties agreed on the bargaining unit description and the applicant filed sufficient membership evidence, the Board directed that a representation vote be held.

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 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 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 applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the responding party in the construction industry.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, the parties signed a memorandum of agreement resolving all outstanding issues.

Pursuant to section 160(1) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board issued two certificates to the union: one for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector in Ontario, and another for all other sectors in the specified geographic areas.

The responding party employer requested that the ballot box be sealed in a union certification matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the request and found it inappropriate to seal the ballot box in the circumstances, denying the request.

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

On the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed was made within one year.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a ratification vote for a collective agreement settled by interest arbitration.

The applicant later sought to amend the pleadings to argue the agreement to arbitrate was invalid.

The Board declined to inquire further into the application, finding the amended pleadings were filed with undue delay and expanded the scope of the original complaint.

The Board also noted the union had since been decertified, rendering the requested relief moot and serving no labour relations purpose.

In a Ministerial reference regarding the authority to appoint a conciliation officer, the Ontario Labour Relations Board addressed preliminary procedural matters.

The Board granted standing to the IUOE and Dibblee Paving on consent, set hearing dates, and determined the order of proceedings.

The Board also ordered the National Capital Road Builders Association to produce various membership, corporate, and meeting records to the unions, while denying the production of financial records at this stage.

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 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 would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

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 Act.

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 defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be held.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

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

The applicants sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for alleged unpaid wages.

The primary applicant claimed he was hired as a manager to set up a lawn care franchise and sought over $14,000 in unpaid wages.

The responding party denied the existence of an employment relationship, asserting the applicant was only a prospective hire who had not completed the necessary paperwork or vetting.

The Board found overwhelming evidence militating against an employment relationship, noting the absence of a written contract, paycheques, tax forms, or direct supervision.

The application was dismissed as the applicants failed to establish they were employees under the Employment Standards Act.