Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant union sought to displace the incumbent union as the bargaining agent for a unit of bricklayers, stonemasons, and plasterers employed by the responding party.

The only issue was the geographic scope of the bargaining unit.

The applicant argued for a province-wide unit, relying on the Board's policy that a displacing union takes the bargaining unit as it finds it.

The responding party and intervenors argued for a unit restricted to Board Area 3, citing the unique nature of the collective agreement and the statutory rights of local unions under section 146 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board applied its general policy, finding that the statutory and practical arguments did not overcome the presumption in favour of the existing province-wide bargaining structure.

A certificate was issued for a province-wide bargaining unit.

The applicant union brought an application under the Employment Standards Act claiming that the responding parties, who took over portions of the food services contract at Pearson International Airport from the predecessor employer, were successor employers liable for termination pay.

The responding parties argued that the building owner (GTAA) was a federal undertaking, rendering the provincial successor employer provisions inapplicable, and raised several other statutory defenses.

The Board held that the provincial law applied as it did not impair the federal undertaking, found that the responding parties were successor employers providing services to the building owner, and concluded that the employees were entitled to termination pay from the successors despite having received notice from the predecessor.

The applicant employee appealed the refusal of an Employment Standards Officer to issue an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The responding employer argued that the proceedings were stayed pursuant to an order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The Board noted that the stay of proceedings expired on November 2, 2001.

Consequently, the Board directed that the scheduled hearing would proceed in the normal course.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application via correspondence.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicants filed applications under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act requesting a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decisions.

The Board noted that the Ministry of Labour had not forwarded all requested documents, including the order to pay and the officer's narrative report.

The Board directed the Ministry and one of the applicants to provide the missing documents forthwith and directed the Registrar to process the applications in the normal course.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the union violated section 74 by refusing to file a seniority grievance on her behalf.

The events giving rise to the complaint occurred in 1997 and 1998, resulting in a delay of over three years before the application was filed.

The applicant failed to comply with a Board direction to explain the delay.

The Board exercised its discretion to decline to hear the application, noting that the delay was excessive, unexplained, and inherently prejudicial to the responding parties.

The application was dismissed.

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

The responding party advised the Board that the parties agreed to adjourn the grievance pending the filing of a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Act.

The Board amended the style of cause to reflect the correct responding party and adjourned the mediation and hearing dates on consent.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board cancelled the hearing dates set for November 7 and 13, 2001, having regard to the respondent's correspondence.

Two unions filed competing applications for certification to represent employees at Longfields Manor Nursing Home.

The Board found that both applicants met the 40% membership threshold required to order a representation vote.

Due to disputes raised by the responding party and intervenors regarding the timeliness of the applications, existing collective agreements, and an alleged breach of a settlement agreement, the Board directed that a representation vote be held but ordered the ballot box sealed.

The ballots will not be counted until the Board resolves the outstanding issues at a future hearing.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed its appeal under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act for being filed outside the mandatory 30-day time limit.

The applicant argued that the Board should extend the time for filing the appeal.

The Board held that the 30-day time limit in section 61(1) is mandatory and that it has no statutory discretion to extend it.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union raised preliminary objections, arguing the matter was settled, failed to disclose a prima facie case, and was delayed, requesting dismissal without a hearing.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions addressing the specific factual assertions in the union's response before ruling on the preliminary objections.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent registered practical nurses at the responding employer's nursing home.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with provisions for segregating ballots of individuals in disputed positions.

The applicant union filed a grievance referral against the responding party.

On agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a July 19, 2001 decision in which the Board found it lacked jurisdiction to grant relief under section 69(6)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 because the parties had entered into a renewal collective agreement.

The Board denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was attempting to present arguments regarding other subsections of section 69 that could have been made at the original hearing.

The applicant, International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793, sought to withdraw its application against Clean-Fill Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant union referred grievances to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement for an interim settlement.

The agreement required the responding employers to submit to an audit in accordance with the Carpenters' Provincial Agreement and requested an adjournment.

The Board incorporated the agreement into its decision, directed the audit, and adjourned the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The parties agreed to adjourn three related applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the applications would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

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

The respondent employer failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite receiving notice.

The Board proceeded in the employer's absence, heard evidence from the union's business representative, and found the employer in breach of the collective agreement.

The employer was ordered to pay $53,636.36 to the union.