Ontario Labour Relations Board

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 filed a successor employer and related employer application against the responding parties.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement agreeing that a sale of a business occurred and that the successor employer is bound by the current collective agreement.

The Board issued a consent order declaring the successor employer bound by the collective agreement and recognizing the union as the exclusive bargaining agent.

The applicant and responding party 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 application will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The applicant employee previously succeeded in a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay, following a hearing that the employer did not attend.

The employer subsequently wrote to the Board claiming it had not received notice of the hearing.

The Board treated the employer's letter as a request for reconsideration and a request to re-hear the matter, directing the other parties to advise within two weeks if they objected to a re-hearing.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an Order to Pay.

At the hearing, it was revealed that the responding employer had filed an assignment in bankruptcy, but the appointed trustee had not been given notice of the proceeding.

The applicant requested to proceed, while the Ministry of Labour requested an adjournment.

The Board determined that notice must be given to the trustee and adjourned the hearing.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent an 'all employee' bargaining unit at the responding party hospice.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, proposing separate full-time and part-time units.

The majority of the Board found the applicant's proposed unit could be appropriate and directed a representation vote, ordering that ballots of part-time employees and individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

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

The applicant, NOVA Chemicals (Canada) Ltd., filed an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Having regard to correspondence dated November 21, 2001, the Board noted that the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that his union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by refusing to process his return-to-work grievance to arbitration.

The union based its decision on medical assessments indicating the applicant had a permanent partial disability and could not perform the essential duties of his pre-accident job.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application without a hearing pursuant to Rule 46, finding that the union had directed its mind to the relevant issues, sought appropriate medical evidence, and made a reasonable decision not to proceed to arbitration.

The applicant failed to plead a prima facie case of arbitrariness.

The applicant requested to withdraw its referral to arbitration with the agreement of the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and cancelled all previously scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant union sought a second representation vote and other remedies under section 11 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following employer intimidation during the initial vote.

The employer's president had threatened to shut down the company if the union was successful, resulting in no employees casting a ballot.

The Board found the employer violated sections 70, 72, and 76 of the Act.

The Board ordered a second representation vote and directed the employer to offer re-employment to the affected employees at the union's standard wage rate to remedy the intimidatory effect of the employer's statements.

The applicant union filed a certification application.

A representation vote was ordered in the absence of a response from the responding party employer.

The employer subsequently requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Board noted that the Labour Relations Act, 1995 imposes strict two-day time limits for employer responses.

The Board ruled that any response filed now would be untimely, the representation vote would proceed as ordered, and the weight given to any late response would be determined by the hearing panel.

The applicant union in an Occupational Health and Safety Act reprisal application requested that its matter be heard together with an employer's application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found it appropriate to hear the matters together due to overlapping issues of fact and law, and scheduled both applications for a joint hearing.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees of the responding party municipality.

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 of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

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

A consultation was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear.

The responding party requested that the application be dismissed.

As the applicant bears the onus of proving the complaint, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application alleging that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by settling her grievance without her consent.

The grievance related to a 15-day suspension imposed after the applicant took a trip to Africa despite being denied a leave of absence.

The union and employer requested that the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union had met with the applicant, kept her informed, and made an informed decision to settle the matter.

The Board held that settling a grievance over an employee's objections does not, without more, constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the Director in trust to disburse the held funds according to the settlement, with $1,000 paid to the employee, $819.27 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicants filed separate applications alleging that the responding trade union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union requested that a third application be joined with two already scheduled to be heard together, as all three involved claims by pensioners alleging discrimination arising from an agreement between the union and their former employer.

The Board granted the request and directed the Registrar to schedule the matters to be heard together.

The applicant union sought an extension of time to file a summary of material facts in an application under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the extension to December 7, 2001, and set a schedule for the responding party's submissions and any reply.

The Board noted that the matter may be decided based on the written materials without a hearing, and warned that no further extensions would be granted.