Ontario Labour Relations Board

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned three related applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year, having regard to the agreement of the parties.

The Board noted that the responding parties did not agree that one of the files should be listed for hearing together with the others, and deferred the determination of that issue until a request is made to relist the matters for hearing.

The applicant requested a further adjournment of the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding party to respond to the request by November 2, 2001.

If no submissions are received, the application will be adjourned until February 8, 2002.

The applicant employer requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision.

The Board previously acknowledged errors in its decision regarding amounts to be paid out of trust and directed the employer to provide information on the net amounts owing.

The employer failed to provide the required information.

The Board granted the employer a further two weeks to comply, failing which the Board would calculate the amounts based on the material before it.

In an application for termination of bargaining rights, a representation vote resulted in an 8-7 vote against the union, with one segregated ballot remaining.

The union argued for a second vote to protect the secrecy of the segregated ballot, while the applicant argued the ballot should be opened as the employee consented.

The Board noted its general policy is not to open a single segregated ballot as it would reveal the employee's choice, contrary to section 119(1) of the Act.

The Board adjourned the scheduled oral hearings and directed the applicant and employer to file written submissions on why the usual practice of ordering a second vote should not apply.

The Sudbury Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 527 requested clarification of the effective date of a prior Board decision that determined its bargaining unit and bargaining rights under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The union and the employer disagreed on whether the new bargaining unit description immediately affected the interpretation of existing collective agreements.

The Board clarified that its prior orders were effective on the date they were made, but declined to determine the consequences of those orders on the collective agreements, noting that such disputes must be addressed through grievance arbitration or a separate application under section 27 of the Act.

The applicant filed an application under section 66 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A dispute arose regarding whether the intervenor employer was properly served with the application.

The applicant delivered the application via courier to the mailing address listed on the employer's letterhead, but the employer claimed it was a mailbox company that prohibited courier packages and returned the package.

The Board found the applicant could not be faulted for using the employer's stated address, but to avoid further delay, ordered the applicant to deliver another copy to the employer's counsel, with the employer to reimburse the delivery costs and file its response within four days.

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

On consent of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

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

On agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

If neither party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicant union filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The responding party acknowledged that it failed to post the Notice to Employees of Application (Form B-18) in the workplace.

The Board directed the Registrar to issue an amended Form B-18 with a new terminal date and ordered the responding party to post the amended notice, the application, and the notice of hearing in locations where they would come to the attention of affected employees.

The applicant union and responding employer 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 alleging a breach of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board previously directed the applicant to serve the union with the application.

The union indicated that service had not been made.

As the application was not served in accordance with the Board's rules, the Board terminated the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural direction concerning four related files.

The Board cancelled an upcoming hearing in one file, noting that none of the matters could proceed coherently until an application for reconsideration in a related file was disposed of.

The Board directed the parties to file submissions as previously ordered, after which it would determine the next steps for all files.

The responding party union locals brought motions to dismiss the application as untimely, as it was filed more than two years after the events complained of.

The Board previously directed the applicants to file submissions in response by October 22, 2001.

Having received no submissions, the Board directed the applicants to file written submissions by November 1, 2001, explaining why the application should not be dismissed, failing which the application would be dismissed without further notice.

In an application for certification, the applicant requested that the Board correct its previous decision to reflect that it had already been found to be a trade union under a different name.

The Board reconsidered and varied its previous decision, finding that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employer and employees sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an employment standards officer regarding overtime, termination, and vacation pay.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board allowed the employer's appeal in part.

The Board found the employees' overtime records unreliable and preferred the employer's schedule, calculating overtime pay based on the piecework 'shop rate'.

The Board dismissed the claim for termination pay, finding the employee abandoned his position by failing to report to work or provide medical documentation.

The claim for vacation pay was also dismissed as the employee was on a paid leave of absence.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty per cent 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 dismissed the application.

The Board noted the potential application of section 10(3) of the Act to any subsequent certification applications filed within one year.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of the Board's decision dated September 25, 2001.

The Board directed the responding parties to file any submissions in response within five days, and the applicant to file any reply submissions within two days thereafter.

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Despite the responding party's notice under section 8.1 disputing the bargaining unit description and employee estimate, the Board found the applicant's proposed unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support (not less than 40%).

The Board directed a representation vote for the proposed voting constituency.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The responding party and an intervenor requested reconsideration of a Board decision directing a representation vote in a certification application.

They argued the application was untimely due to an existing voluntary recognition agreement and raised issues with the ballot form.

The Board dismissed the requests, noting that conducting a speedy representation vote aligns with the purposes of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the timeliness and ballot issues could be addressed by the panel assigned to hear the matter without delaying the vote.