Ontario Labour Relations Board

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision to correct an error in the appearances listed in its previous decision dated October 22, 2001.

The appearances were amended to correctly reflect the representatives for the applicant and the responding party.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding employer disputed the union'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 ordered a representation vote, directing that ballots of part-time employees and other disputed positions be segregated.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, after a representation vote had been held.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and directed the parties' attention to section 7(10) of the Act regarding potential bars to future applications.

The applicant requested an amendment to the style of cause to delete Electrical Power Systems Construction Association as a responding party and add it as an affected employers' organization.

The applicant also requested to delete Local 666 and add Local 67 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices in the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry.

The Board granted the amendments and adjourned the hearing scheduled for November 15, 2001, to a date to be set in consultation with the parties.

The applicants and responding party mutually agreed to request an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the applications sine die, noting they would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed was made within one year.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was held, after which the parties agreed to adjourn the matter.

At the subsequent hearing, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application on the basis that it was untimely.

The Board directed the destruction of the ballots and ordered the responding party to post the decision in the workplace.

The applicant union filed two applications for certification, one under the general provisions and one under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board directed that both applications be heard together by the same panel to avoid inconsistent results and inefficient use of resources.

The Board also ordered the responding party to produce a narrowed list of documents related to specific projects prior to the hearing.

The applicant requested a default judgment due to the responding party's failure to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

However, noting that settlement discussions were ongoing, the Board adjourned the scheduled hearing and deferred consideration of the default judgment request.

The applicant sought to appeal a decision by the Minister of Labour denying approval for a Multi-Workplace Joint Health and Safety Committee under section 9(3.1) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The applicant argued that the decision was made by a delegate of the Minister acting as an inspector, and was therefore appealable under section 61.

The Board held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as section 61 only permits appeals from orders or decisions of an inspector, not those of the Minister or the Minister's delegate exercising ministerial discretion.

The applications were dismissed.

The responding party requested a hearing to address the appropriate bargaining unit description.

The Board denied the request, noting that the issue had already been determined in previous decisions and an application for reconsideration had been denied.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots in the representation vote were cast in favour of the applicant union, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for construction labourers employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued certificates for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector and all other sectors in the appropriate geographic areas pursuant to section 160(1) of the Act.

The applicant requested to withdraw their application against Knob Hill Farms Ltd./Sevendon Holdings and the Ministry of Labour.

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

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

Having regard to a settlement reached between the parties, the Board ordered the application terminated.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification and directed the union to advise whether its related unfair labour practice complaint was withdrawn.

The applicant union and responding employer entered into Minutes of Settlement regarding an unfair labour practice complaint and a certification application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the unfair labour practice complaint and directed that a second representation vote be held for the proposed bargaining unit of carpenters and carpenters' apprentices in the specified geographic areas.

The applicant applied to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The union alleged under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act that the employer initiated the application.

The applicant and intervenor employer moved to dismiss this defence, arguing the union's pleadings were inadequate under the Board's Rules and that the evidence called did not support the allegations.

The Board found the union's pleadings were largely bald allegations that failed to meet the requirements of Rule 38, and the evidence did not support an inference of employer initiation.

The Board dismissed the union's section 63(16) defence.

In a certification application, the applicant union requested that the ballots of five disputed individuals be counted, conceding that the application should be dismissed if it lacked majority support among them.

The responding employer and intervenor union opposed the request but identified no prejudice.

The Board ordered the ballots to be counted, noting it could resolve the matter without further litigation.

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

Having regard to a prior Board decision and the agreement of the parties, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken to determine whether the employees wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor union.

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

The parties executed Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued declarations that the responding party is bound by several collective agreements and ordered the responding party to pay $5,000.00 in full and final settlement of all claims up to November 6, 2001.

The Board also ordered the responding party to provide notice of future projects covered by the collective agreements.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under s. 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to return the grievor to work following a workplace injury.

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

The applicant requested the Board determine the matter based solely on its filed materials.

The Board declined to make the requested declarations and orders, finding the applicant's pleadings insufficient to establish that work was available for the grievor at the relevant times.

The scheduled hearing was ordered to proceed.