Ontario Labour Relations Board

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of Quinte & Region Community Homes.

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 certified the union and defined the appropriate bargaining unit.

The applicant union requested an order directing the responding employers to produce documents and particulars in relation to an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board noted the distinction between particulars and information, declining to order the production of information prior to the hearing.

However, the Board directed the responding parties to produce or make available for inspection various corporate, commercial, property, and employment documents relevant to the related employer and sale of business allegations.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for paramedical employees of the responding party.

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 declared the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The employer requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismiss the application in accordance with minutes of settlement.

The Board ordered that unless the applicant advised otherwise by January 5, 2001, the application would be dismissed.

The applicants filed complaints against the responding trade union alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, regarding their re-classification grievances.

The Board consolidated the multiple identical complaints and issued procedural directions, setting deadlines for submissions regarding the employer's request to be removed from the applications and for the union's response.

The applicant Ironworkers filed two jurisdictional dispute complaints regarding work assigned by the employer to the Millwrights.

The first complaint involved repair and maintenance of slat conveyors at a Toyota plant, which the Board upheld as correctly assigned to the Millwrights based on area practice and the International Agreement.

The second complaint involved the installation of an overhead mono-rail conveyor at a Budd plant.

The Board found the employer incorrectly assigned all phase 2 work to the Millwrights, holding that the work should have been assigned in accordance with the conveyor agreement, which would have allocated a portion of the work to the Ironworkers.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding its investigation into his layoff by the employer.

The Board found a genuine factual dispute between the parties concerning the nature and quality of the union's investigation, as the applicant alleged the layoff was a pretext for discharge after he raised an overtime concern.

The Board referred the matter to the Registrar to be listed for a hearing.

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 an application alleging a sale of business and related employer status under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

One of the responding parties requested further particulars regarding the applicant's allegations.

The Board noted that under sections 1(5) and 69(13) of the Act, the responding parties bear the burden to adduce all material facts within their knowledge.

The Board declined to order further particulars for two paragraphs, finding the information was generally within the responding parties' knowledge, but directed the applicant to provide particulars for a third paragraph prior to any meetings or hearings.

The applicant union breached a settlement agreement by paying a $1,000 photocopying fee late.

The responding employers sought to have the applications dismissed as a consequence of the breach, and requested that the Board consider representations made during the mediation process.

The Board panel, having mediated the settlement, decided to recuse itself from determining the consequences of the breach, as it would be inappropriate for the panel to hear evidence regarding confidential mediation communications.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to assign a different panel to hear the employers' request for dismissal.

The applicant union requested an adjournment of its application against the responding party employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request.

The matter was adjourned to January 8, 2002.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to arbitration under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

Proceeding in the responding party's absence, the Board considered the applicant's evidence and found that the responding party was bound by and had violated the collective agreement.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $10,759.89 in damages and $752.00 in statutory fees.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the matter to January 8, 2002.

The applicant union applied under section 43 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration.

The responding employer consented to the direction.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the process of collective bargaining had been unsuccessful and directed that the collective agreement be settled by a board of arbitration pursuant to section 43(3) of the Act.

The applicant in one of three related proceedings before the Ontario Labour Relations Board requested that the matters be consolidated.

The Vice-Chair noted concerns regarding duplicative document production and hearing time, as well as potential prejudice to the responding parties.

The Board directed a conference call with all counsel to discuss the proposed consolidation and scheduling.

The applicants requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed their application without a hearing.

The applicants argued that the Board was required to hold a hearing under various provisions of the Labour Relations Act, including reverse onus provisions.

The Board found that the reverse onus provisions did not apply to the facts alleged and that it had complied with the Act by giving the parties a full opportunity to make written submissions.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed a grievance referral against the responding party.

The Board was unable to serve the responding party with the Confirmation of Filing and Notice of Hearing because the documents were returned by the courier marked 'Out of Business'.

The Board directed that the matter cannot proceed until the responding party is served.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral 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 neither party requests to proceed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the matter to January 22, 2002.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding employer failed to remit contributions required by the collective agreement.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the responding party was deemed to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the employer violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $83,808.75 in unpaid contributions, $4,150.40 in liquidated damages, and $214.00 in costs.