Ontario Labour Relations Board

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.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and sought to rely on membership evidence from a previously withdrawn application.

The responding party objected, arguing that the named employer did not exist and that the application actually encompassed two separate corporate entities.

The responding party requested a hearing prior to any representation vote to address the employer identity issue and a potential statutory bar.

The Board declined to delay the vote, finding sufficient appearance of membership support to order an expeditious representation vote.

The Board directed that ballots be segregated by employer to preserve the parties' positions for future determination.

One Board member dissented, arguing a hearing should precede the vote.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment on consent.

The applicant filed an application regarding an employment standards matter against Trimor Services Limited and the Ministry of Labour.

The parties reached a settlement on October 18, 2001.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the proceeding.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote and ordered that ballots of disputed office and clerical staff be segregated.

The applicant union and responding employers consented to cancel the hearing scheduled for October 23, 2001.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which they will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant union filed a jurisdictional dispute application.

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

If no party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicants requested reconsideration of a September 20, 2001 decision regarding the provision of membership lists and notices to union members.

The Board denied the request, clarifying that its previous orders correctly distinguished between members of the IUBAC prior to October 17, 1998, and those who joined the BACU after that date.

The Board also rejected the applicant's assertions that it had made findings of fact without evidence or in violation of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant and the Ministry of Labour requested an extension of a sine die adjournment to allow an officer to consult with the parties and attempt to effect a settlement.

The Board granted the request and adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding party to respond to an application for reconsideration by a specified date.

The Board also directed the Registrar not to destroy the ballots in the application in the interim.

The appellant appealed three orders issued by a Ministry of Labour inspector under section 61 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The appellant and the Ministry of Labour reached an agreement whereby one order was rescinded and the appellant withdrew its appeal regarding the other two orders, having already complied with them.

The Board noted the agreement and recorded the appeal as withdrawn.

The applicant union sought production of documents relating to work performed by individuals whose status was in dispute in a related employer application.

The Board consolidated three files for pre-hearing purposes and ordered the responding parties, Tri-Can Contracting Incorporated and Innovative Flooring Inc., to produce all relevant documents, including those in the possession of subcontractors, or make their best efforts to obtain them.

If unable to do so, a hearing would be scheduled to produce the documents pursuant to a summons.

The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing scheduled for October 24, 2001.

The Board rescheduled the hearing for November 7, 2001.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party violated the collective agreement by subcontracting work to non-union employers and employing non-union members.

The responding party 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 declared the responding party bound by the collective agreement, found it in violation, and ordered it to pay $21,360.00 in damages and $214.00 in costs.

The applicants, a temporary employment agency and its owner, applied to suspend an occupational health and safety inspector's order pending their appeal.

The order required the agency to instruct and train all workers placed at clients' workplaces on health and safety legislation and hazards.

The Board applied the three-part test for suspending an order and found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a strong prima facie case for a successful appeal, as they provided no evidence of what steps they took to ensure workers actually underwent training or how the inspector misapprehended the evidence.

The application for suspension was dismissed.

The employer and the trade union made a joint application for the Board's consent to the early termination of their collective agreement.

Notices were posted on the employer's premises, and no objections were filed by any affected employees.

The Board granted its consent to the early termination of the collective agreement.

The applicant employees applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a declaration terminating the responding union's bargaining rights.

The union objected, arguing the application was untimely under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board directed the applicant and the employer to file written submissions on the timeliness issue before giving further consideration to the application.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay termination and severance pay to a former employee, a certified technician.

The employer argued it was exempt from paying under the Employment Standards Act because the employee was guilty of wilful misconduct, citing several incidents of poor and unsafe work.

The Board found that while the employee's performance was unsatisfactory and justified termination, his mistakes were not intentional or deliberate.

Therefore, the conduct did not amount to wilful misconduct, and the Order to Pay was affirmed.

The applicant requested to withdraw its referral of a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the request and the referral was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to withdraw its applications.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the applications were withdrawn with leave of the Board.