Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant union filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement.

Based on the settlement, the Board amended the style of cause to correct a responding party's name and dismissed the application.

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

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

The applicant union and responding employers 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 party requests to proceed.

The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for vacation and termination pay owed to a former employee.

The Ministry of Labour argued the application was untimely, having been filed more than 45 days after the Order was issued.

The Board found that the Order was delivered to the applicant's address and signed for, and that the applicant also received a follow-up letter but failed to act promptly.

The Board declined to extend the time for filing, noting the significant delay and lack of extenuating circumstances.

The application was dismissed as untimely and the Order to Pay was affirmed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision to correct an inadvertent omission in its November 20, 2001 decision.

The Board added December 10, 2001 to the schedule of continuation dates for the hearing.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed past the deadline of September 13, 2001.

After reviewing the materials and the applicant's letter, the Board found it appropriate to extend the time for filing to November 27, 2001, making the application timely.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be processed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, requesting a decision without a hearing if the responding party failed to file a notice of intent to defend.

The applicant sought declarations that the responding party was bound by the collective agreements and an order for document production.

The Board declined to issue the requested decision, finding that the grievance referral contained no factual assertions to support the claims.

The Board directed the matter to proceed to a hearing so the applicant could adduce evidence and provide particulars.

The applicant, Excel Employment Tempro Inc., sought to withdraw its application against the Ministry of Labour and an inspector.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The application was initially returned due to an improperly completed Certificate of Delivery, but was later re-submitted.

The responding union argued it was not obligated to file a response because it had not been served with the entire application in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

The Board noted the union appeared to have the substance of the application and directed the union to either file submissions explaining how it was prejudiced by the procedural breach or file its response by an extended deadline.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay directing it to pay $4,596.00 in unpaid wages and statutory administration costs.

The Board previously noted the applicant failed to comply with s. 68(7) of the Employment Standards Act by not paying the required amount to the Director in Trust.

The applicant subsequently provided proof of payment and reasons for an extension of time.

The Board exercised its discretion under s. 68(4) to extend the time for applying for review, found the application timely, and directed the Registrar to process the matter in the normal course.

The employee requested a reconsideration of a prior Board decision under the Employment Standards Act, arguing that the Board erred in accepting the employer's commission schedules and failing to recognize that he signed an employment agreement under duress.

The Board denied the request, finding that the employee had the opportunity to challenge the schedules and raise the issue of duress at the original hearing, and that the economic pressure he faced did not amount to legal duress.

The employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to resolve a jurisdictional dispute regarding the assignment of waste rock haulage work.

The work had been assigned to members of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers of Canada (CEP), but the United Steelworkers of America claimed the work for its members based on a prior arbitration award.

The Board found that the prior arbitration award was ambiguous and that the employer's long-standing past practice of assigning the work to the CEP, along with considerations of efficiency and stable labour relations, favoured maintaining the assignment to the CEP.

The Board upheld the assignment to the CEP and ordered the Steelworkers to refrain from requiring the employer to assign the work to its members.

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 Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for paramedical employees at Brockville General Hospital.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant sought to withdraw an application for termination of bargaining rights after a representation vote in which no employee cast a ballot.

The applicant requested the withdrawal be 'without prejudice' to reserve the right to raise the facts of the vote in future proceedings.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the application, noting that the admissibility of the factual circumstances in any subsequent proceeding would be determined at that time.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party agreed the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate but disputed the estimated number of employees, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board could not be absolutely certain that 40% of the individuals in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, but the responding party agreed the ballots cast in the representation vote should be counted.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union filed a related employer and sale of a business application against several responding companies.

One responding company brought a preliminary motion arguing the union failed to plead a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the preliminary motion, noting the low threshold for pleading a prima facie case in such applications due to the reverse onus provisions.

The Board also addressed procedural matters regarding amended pleadings and scheduling.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for withdrawing his termination grievance.

The union and employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the applicant had signed a full and final release settling all matters relating to his employment and termination in exchange for $9,500.

The Board found no violation of section 74, noting the union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

Furthermore, the Board exercised its discretion under section 96 to dismiss the application because the applicant had signed a release covering all employment entitlements, including reinstatement.

The applicant filed an application for religious exemption from union membership under section 52 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding trade union requested that the application be dismissed for lack of particularity and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the application disclosed a prima facie case but lacked particularity.

The Board directed the applicant to provide specific particulars regarding her religious beliefs and congregation by a set deadline.