Ontario Labour Relations Board

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

On the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die, noting that it would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within one year.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent security officers at the Thunder Bay Charity Casino.

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 majority of the Board found the numerical difference was not significant and directed a representation vote without sealing the ballot box.

A dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the consent adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicant appealed an order issued by the Ministry of Labour.

The Board was advised that the Ministry of Labour had rescinded the order that was the subject matter of the application.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant requested that the responding party be directed to bring its telephone records to the hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and directed the responding party to bring its telephone records for the period of July 1, 2001 to September 30, 2001.

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

The responding party filed a section 8.1 notice asserting the proposed bargaining unit was not appropriate because it did not employ any construction labourers.

Finding that the union had the requisite 40 percent membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote.

Due to the section 8.1 notice and the bargaining unit description dispute, the Board directed that the ballots be segregated and the ballot box sealed pending further order or agreement.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote to be held on the fifth day following the application, dismissing the responding party's request for a delay.

Disputed ballots regarding certain positions will be segregated.

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 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 requested an adjournment of the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant union applied for certification for employees of Regional Medical Associates, naming McMaster University as the responding party.

Both McMaster and Regional Medical Associates filed responses indicating that McMaster does not employ the affected employees, pointing to a previous Board decision and collective agreement where the applicant agreed that employees of affiliated organizations, including Regional Medical Associates, are not employees of McMaster.

The Board directed the applicant to file written submissions as to why the application should not be dismissed before considering whether to order a representation vote.

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

The parties subsequently reached a settlement.

Having regard to the settlement, the Board ordered the application terminated.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of cleaning and maintenance employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the union and directed that a certificate issue.

Previously scheduled meeting and hearing dates were cancelled.

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 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.

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 employee appealed a decision by an Employment Standards Officer not to issue an Order to Pay against the responding party employer.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the applicant nor the responding party appeared.

After standing down for 30 minutes and confirming that notice of the hearing had been sent, the Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.

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 school board brought an application against the responding unions and individuals.

On agreement of the parties, the application against the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation and one individual was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The application against the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 5678 was adjourned sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

In an application for termination of bargaining rights, a representation vote resulted in an 8-7 vote against the union, with one segregated ballot remaining.

The applicant and employer argued the ballot should be counted as the employee consented, while the union argued counting it would violate ballot secrecy.

The Board held that ensuring the secrecy of the ballot by holding a second vote outweighed the considerations argued by the applicant and employer, and directed a second representation vote.