Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant union requested a fresh representation vote following a previous Board decision.

The Board ordered the vote to be held on October 26, 2001, for the agreed bargaining unit.

Individuals employed on May 4, 2001, were deemed eligible to vote, with a direction that ballots of individuals no longer employed by the responding party be segregated pending further agreement or order.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of Westwood Management.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and was satisfied that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit appeared to be members.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on October 24, 2001, and directed the responding party to post the required notices.

The applicant filed an application against the responding party before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board terminated the application.

The parties reached a settlement regarding applications for related employer and successor rights declarations, as well as a grievance referral.

The Board issued a consent order dismissing the related employer and successor rights applications, declaring Maran Ceramic Tiles Inc. bound to the Bricklayers Provincial Collective Agreement, and allowing the withdrawal of the grievance referral.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the responding party's long term care home.

Following a representation vote where 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 directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

In an unfair labour practice and duty of fair representation complaint regarding the end-tailing of seniority following a corporate amalgamation, the applicant sought production of legal opinions and advice provided to the responding union.

The responding union claimed solicitor-client privilege over advice concerning strategy and negotiations, while conceding waiver regarding the legality of end-tailing.

The Board held that by pleading reliance on legal advice to establish the bona fides of its decision to end-tail seniority, the responding union impliedly waived privilege over all related legal advice, including recommended options and strategies.

Production of the documents was ordered.

The applicants filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50 per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in opposition to the union.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and ordered the destruction of the ballots after 30 days.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding the settlement of his 1997 harassment grievance.

The employer and union requested that the application be dismissed for failure to state a prima facie case and for delay.

The Board dismissed the request to dismiss for failure to state a prima facie case, finding sufficient substance in the allegations.

However, given the significant delay in filing the application, the Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions explaining the delay before determining whether to dismiss the application on that basis.

The employer applied to review an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay for unpaid wages owed to a former employee.

The employer did not dispute the wages were owed but requested the proceedings be adjourned or the funds held in trust until related civil litigation involving the parties was resolved, arguing for a potential set-off.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that section 8 of the Employment Standards Act strictly prohibits employers from claiming a set-off against wages.

The Board held there was no legal basis to delay payment to the employee while awaiting the outcome of separate civil proceedings.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent registered nurses at the responding party's long term care home.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent 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 ordered that a certificate will issue to the applicant.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant and responding parties agreed to adjourn the applications.

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

The applicant employees applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty per cent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The Christian Labour Association of Canada requested that three related files be heard together.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and listed the files to be heard by the same panel on October 29 and 30, 2001.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing dates of October 22 and 30, 2001.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment and referred the matter to the Registrar to set two new dates in consultation with the parties.

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

On the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die, noting it would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed was made within one year.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's determination approximately one year after it was issued.

The Board directed the applicant to provide reasons for seeking an extension of time.

Upon receiving the applicant's submissions, the Board directed the responding parties to file any responding submissions regarding the extension request by October 31, 2001.

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

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

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 taken, with disputed positions permitted to cast segregated ballots.