Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party violated the collective agreement by subcontracting shingling work to a non-union company.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement, that it had violated the subcontracting provision, and directing it to pay $8,500 in damages to the applicant.

The applicant school board sought to suspend an inspector's order requiring it to conduct air monitoring in various rooms under maximum occupancy conditions, pending its appeal of the order.

The Board applied the three-factor test for suspending an order under section 61(7) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Board found that the applicant would not suffer significant prejudice by complying with the order, and that there was a possibility of endangering worker safety if the order were suspended, given complaints of symptoms related to air quality and a WSIB decision finding a correlation.

The application for suspension was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On consent of the parties, the Board adjourned 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 sought an extension of time for the filing of an application under the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the extension of time to the extent necessary to render the matter timely, directing that the matter proceed in the usual manner.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the withdrawal, noting that the effect of section 7(10) may be determined at a future date if necessary.

The Board directed the destruction of the ballots cast in the representation vote after 30 days and ordered the responding party to post copies of the decision.

The Board revoked its previous decision dated October 2, 2001, after realizing that the ballots from a representation vote held on June 22, 2000, had not been counted.

The applicant union argued that the parties' Minutes of Settlement meant the vote results should be disregarded and the application terminated without consequences.

The Board rejected this, noting the Labour Relations Act limits discretion to disregard votes or simply terminate applications.

The Board directed the applicant to choose whether to count the ballots or withdraw the application, noting that either choice could trigger a statutory bar on future applications.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled consultation because her counsel was unavailable.

The responding party and intervenor objected, citing previous delays.

The Board denied the request, noting that adjournments are rarely granted without consent and no exceptional circumstances were presented.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision amending paragraph 6 of its previous decision dated November 2, 2001.

The amendment directs the respondent employer to pay the applicant union the sum of $53,636.36 as a remedy.

The applicants filed an application for termination of bargaining rights under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application due to several procedural defects, including the use of photocopied signatures, failure to deliver the application to the responding party before filing, and failure to propose a date for a Board-ordered vote.

The application was terminated without prejudice to the filing of a new, timely application.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $1,200 paid to the employee, $356.74 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found the application to be timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union and the employer filed responses seeking the dismissal of the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

Before dealing with the motions to dismiss, the Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions indicating whether she agrees with specific material facts alleged by the union in its response.

The applicants filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an unlawful strike application against the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board noted that the pleadings in both matters were identical.

The Board ordered that the time period for filing a response in the unfair labour practice complaint be shortened and listed both matters to be heard together.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application via correspondence.

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

In a proceeding under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, the Ontario Labour Relations Board received correspondence from the employer and OPSEU regarding the number of employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board held that it would not determine the percentage of unrepresented employees until the parties agreed on, or the Board decided, the total number of employees in the bargaining unit.

The employer asserted the number was 44.

The Board noted that if the unrepresented percentage is 40 percent or greater, it would then consider OPSEU's argument regarding its membership evidence.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the responding party withdrew its challenges to the vote and the voters' list.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued two certificates pursuant to section 160(1) of the Act: one for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector province-wide, and another for all other sectors in the specified geographic areas.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed more than 45 days after the Officer's letter, making it untimely.

The applicant was given 10 days to file submissions requesting an extension of time but failed to do so.

The Board dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the specified bargaining unit of journeymen and apprentice carpenters.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer violated the collective agreement by subcontracting work to a non-union company.

The responding party failed to file a response or 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 damages and costs.

The applicant failed to file an application within 10 days as directed by the Board's previous correspondence.

Consequently, the Board ordered the matter terminated.