Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicants brought applications for a declaration of a related employer or a sale of business under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

At the hearing, the applicants withdrew the application against one party and sought to add another.

The Board ordered a non-appearing responding party to produce extensive documents related to construction work and set a schedule for further document production and the addition of parties.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application against the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, seeking to have his discharge grievance advanced to arbitration.

The grievance had previously been settled at mediation, with the applicant signing a settlement that included his resignation and a payment of over $34,000.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith, and that the settlement was reasonable given the employer's evidence regarding the alleged patient abuse.

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

The parties subsequently 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 applicant union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and requested an order directing the responding parties to produce documents and particulars prior to the hearing.

The Board ordered the responding parties to make specific corporate, commercial, and employment documents available for inspection, subject to a confidentiality order.

The Board declined to order the production of particulars or information, noting that the responding parties' statutory obligation under sections 1(5) and 69(13) is to adduce relevant facts at the hearing, not prior to it.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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

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 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 trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant filed sufficient membership evidence to demonstrate that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit appeared to be members.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) filed an application for certification for early childhood educators employed by the Lakehead District School Board.

The Board directed a representation vote.

Subsequently, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation (OSSTF) filed an intervention, its own application for certification, and a request for reconsideration of the vote direction, asking that both applications be treated as filed on the same day.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision, noting OSSTF's filings occurred after the decision was issued.

Pursuant to section 111(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board postponed consideration of the OSSTF application until a final decision is issued on the ETFO application.

The applicant employer applied for a review of an order to pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant and one of the responding employees entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $500 paid to the employee, $110.50 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and an affiliated bargaining agent.

Satisfied that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit appeared to be members of the applicant, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

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

The union requested the matter be dismissed for failing to establish a prima facie case or, in the alternative, that the applicant be required to file full particulars.

The Board directed the applicant to file full and complete particulars of the alleged breach and to address the union's arguments for dismissal.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was filed more than 45 days after the date of the Order.

The applicant did not request an extension of time or provide reasons for the delay, despite being advised by the Registrar to do so.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application as untimely.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding union in the construction industry.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing that three challenged individuals were performing bargaining unit work and their ballots should be counted.

Following the representation vote, 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 of the employer.

The Board heard a displacement application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint in the construction industry.

The parties reached an agreement that three specific individuals were not entitled to vote as they were not at work on the application date.

Due to scheduling conflicts, the hearing for the remaining unfair labour practice complaint was adjourned to March 2002.

The Board directed the employer to post a notice reminding employees of their rights under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, pending the continuation of the hearing.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union, alleging it acted in bad faith by failing to refer his job competition grievance to arbitration.

The union had processed the grievance through the grievance procedure but ultimately decided not to proceed to arbitration following a vote at a union membership meeting.

The Board found that the union had adequately turned its mind to the merits of the grievance, made reasonable assessments regarding the collective agreement, and conducted the membership meeting fairly.

The application was dismissed as there was no evidence of bad faith, malice, or arbitrary conduct by the union.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and an affiliated bargaining agent.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board was satisfied that at least forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit appeared to be members of the applicant.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay unpaid wages and administration costs.

However, the applicant failed to pay the ordered amount to the Director in trust or provide an irrevocable letter of credit, requesting instead to pay in installments or for an extension to arrange a letter of credit.

The Board held that under section 68(7) of the Employment Standards Act, it cannot proceed with the review unless the requisite payment or letter of credit is provided.

The Board granted the applicant 15 working days to make the payment and to request an extension of time to apply for the review, failing which the application would be dismissed.