Ontario Labour Relations Board

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

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 segregated ballots for disputed positions including confidential support staff, student interns, and casual employees.

The employer was also directed to post the required notices.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The parties reached a settlement and requested the Board to issue a consent order.

The Board declared that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement and had violated it.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $3,497.42 in damages to the affected individuals.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an Order to Pay for termination pay.

The employer terminated the applicant after discovering he had punched in early without working, and after the applicant verbally abused the owner upon being confronted and docked pay.

The Board found that the applicant's repeated swearing and verbal abuse, combined with his prior discipline record and time theft, amounted to willful misconduct.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

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

The responding party employer 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 by failing to pay proper rates, make required remittances, and hire through the union hall.

The Board ordered the employer to pay $54,340.12 in damages and $214.00 in costs, and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

The applicants applied for a review of an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act.

On the date the hearing was scheduled to resume, the applicants advised the Board in writing that they accepted the Ministry's assessment for all remaining employees.

As this resolved all matters in dispute, the Board terminated the proceeding, noting the applicants' intention to seek judicial review of an earlier decision finding two of the applicants to be related businesses.

The applicants filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The responding union objected that the application was untimely under section 67(1)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and section 12 of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

The employer agreed the application was untimely.

The Board found that section 12 of HLDAA applied and the application was not brought within an open period.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The applicant requested an order for the production of documents and will say statements in advance of a scheduled consultation.

The Board ordered the production of the requested documents, finding them arguably relevant to the remaining issues, but declined to direct the employer and union to prepare will say statements or summaries of their intended evidence.

The applicant union sought a related employer and sale of business declaration, as well as a grievance referral, against the responding parties.

The responding parties failed to file a response, and the applicant requested the Board dispose of the matters without a hearing.

The Board deemed the responding parties to have accepted the facts in the applications.

However, noting that affected employees had not been given notice, the Board directed a Labour Relations Officer to post notices at the responding parties' premises to allow any affected employees to make submissions before issuing a final declaration.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board determined that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency, with segregated ballots for disputed Department Manager positions.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union requested the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case and for being premature regarding a grievance for severance and termination pay.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the union's requests.

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

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

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

As the settlement disposed of all issues in dispute, the Board terminated the application in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

The parties reached an agreement regarding unfair labour practice complaints and a certification application.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the unfair labour practice complaints and directed that a new representation vote be taken for the agreed-upon voting constituency of employees of Sunlite Floor Cleaners.

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

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

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicant filed an application against the union.

On consent 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.

At a case management consultation, the parties agreed to cancel a scheduled hearing date and adjourn several grievance referrals sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The union parties agreed to meet to attempt to settle their dispute, with the assistance of the Board members if necessary.

The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matters will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.