Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant requested an Order to Pay following a previous decision finding that the employer violated the Employment Standards Act by failing to reinstate her after pregnancy leave and terminating her employment.

As the applicant did not make submissions on the quantum, the Board indicated it would issue an Order to Pay in the amount of $40,340.37, as set out in the previous decision, unless further written submissions were received within three weeks.

The applicants applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.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 timely as no collective agreement had been made since certification.

Finding that not less than forty per cent of the employees expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The applicants filed an application against the responding unions seeking $1 million in damages related to lost severance pay following a plant closure and bankruptcy.

The application was filed 25 months after the applicants realized the severance payments were no longer secured.

The Board dismissed the application for excessive delay, finding that the applicants failed to provide satisfactory reasons for the delay and failed to comply with a previous Board direction to explain the delay.

The union filed applications for certification and unfair labour practice complaints against the employer.

On the scheduled hearing date, the parties executed a Memorandum of Settlement.

The Board issued a consent order reflecting the settlement, which directed a representation vote, defined the appropriate bargaining unit, established the voting constituency, and withdrew the unfair labour practice complaints.

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

The union and employer requested that the application be dismissed for delay.

The Board found that, measuring the delay from when the applicant became fully aware of the issue, the delay was not so unreasonable as to warrant summary dismissal without a hearing.

The Board referred the matter to a Labour Relations Officer, while noting potential issues with the merits of the application.

The applicant withdrew the matter pursuant to Minutes of Settlement filed with the Board.

The applicant 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 disbursement of the $2,288.00 held in trust by the Director, with $1,680.00 to the employee, $400.00 to the employer, and $208.00 retained as an administration fee.

The matter was deemed terminated absent a request from the Ministry of Labour to relist it for hearing.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a representation vote in which more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found it unnecessary to determine whether the intervenor employer was engaged in the construction industry, as it would not affect the outcome of the application.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor union following a transfer of jurisdiction.

The transfer was part of a broader settlement agreement between the two unions to resolve ongoing raiding disputes, conditional upon the applicant demonstrating 40% membership support and winning a Board-supervised representation vote.

The responding employer objected, arguing the application was premature because the transfer of jurisdiction was conditional at the time of filing.

The Board rejected the employer's argument, finding that section 68 allows the Board to conduct representation votes to confirm a successorship claim.

Since the applicant satisfied the conditions and won the representation vote, the Board granted the application and declared the applicant the successor trade union.

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

The parties subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer.

The Board directed that the monies held in trust by the Director be paid out in accordance with the settlement and terminated the application.

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 certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit of employees at the North East Mental Health Centre.

The union filed grievance referrals and a successor/related employer application against the employer and responding party.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement wherein they agreed that the responding party is a successor employer bound by the relevant collective agreements, and agreed to a payment schedule for $50,000 in unpaid contributions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement.

The intervenor, Canadian Health Services, requested reconsideration of a Board decision that abridged the time limits for filing responses in several related applications, including certification, termination of bargaining rights, and unfair labour practice complaints.

The Board denied the request, finding that the abridged time frame of one week was sufficient given the overlap of issues among the applications.

The Board also noted that the matters were scheduled to be heard together rather than consolidated, allowing the hearing panel to determine the most efficient procedure.

The applicant alleged that the responding union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to advance a grievance regarding her suspension and by refusing to file a grievance regarding her permanent layoff.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the suspension grievance, finding the union acted reasonably given the applicant had privately resolved the suspension with the employer.

However, the Board found the union acted arbitrarily in refusing to file the layoff grievance.

The union failed to adequately investigate the applicant's claims regarding her seniority and probationary status, and did not meet with her to discuss the relevant documentation.

The Board directed the union to thoroughly and fairly investigate the proposed layoff grievance.

The responding party claimed it did not receive the Application for Certification until November 6, 2001, contrary to the applicant's Certificate of Delivery stating November 5, 2001.

The Board directed the applicant to file satisfactory proof of delivery by November 5, 2001, failing which the Board would accept the responding party's contention that delivery occurred on November 6, 2001, for the purpose of determining when to direct a representation vote.

The applicants filed an application to terminate the responding party's bargaining rights.

Following a representation vote directed by the Board, not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in opposition to the responding party.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

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

The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer's General Manager engaged in intimidating and threatening conduct at arbitration hearings.

The employer requested particulars and an extension of time to file a response, which the union opposed.

The Board directed the union to clarify whether it was relying on events between 1979 and 2000 and to provide any additional particulars within 7 days.

The employer was granted an extension to file its response within 7 days of receiving the union's particulars.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding trade union and several correctional officers were engaging in an unlawful strike.

As the application involved allegations of ongoing or imminent unlawful strike activity, the Ontario Labour Relations Board scheduled an expedited hearing to address the matter and directed the parties to bring the decision to the attention of affected employees.

The appellant appealed under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the appeal sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if no party requested to proceed within one year.