Ontario Labour Relations Board

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

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement acknowledging that the responding party was bound by the collective agreement and had violated its terms.

The Board issued a consent order directing the responding party to pay $10,371.08 in damages, including unpaid wages.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Cancer Care Ontario, Ottawa Regional Cancer Centre.

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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The union requested a direction for the production of documents.

Having regard to the applicant's response, the Board declined to issue a pre-hearing production order unless the request is renewed, noting a potential dispute over the appropriate date for production.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The union filed a detailed reply with supporting documents.

The Board noted that the facts alleged in the response did not conflict with the applicant's assertions and that it might be able to decide the application without a hearing under section 99(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the union's reply and medical assessments before making a final determination.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The 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 trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent a bargaining unit of stationary engineers currently represented by the intervenor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support and directed that a representation vote be held.

The applicant requested to withdraw its applications with leave of the Board.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the applications were withdrawn.

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

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued an order directing the disbursement of the funds held in trust by the Director, with $1,000 to be paid to the employee, $1,080 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Act regarding subsequent applications.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of Acorn Packaging Inc. 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 directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

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 applicants sought to withdraw their application against the responding party.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision amending paragraph 12 of its October 19, 2001 decision.

The amendment clarified that the hearing scheduled for October 24, 2001, would proceed for the purpose of determining the amount of damages owing to the applicant by the responding party.

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

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate within the required time.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board deemed the responding party to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the responding party bound to the Provincial Agreement and declared it had violated the agreement.

A hearing was scheduled to determine damages.

The intervenor, Fort William First Nation, requested an extension of time to file submissions pursuant to paragraph 2 of Form B-80.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to October 25, 2001.

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 employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act for unpaid vacation pay and wages for a training period.

The employer disputed the hourly rate and the number of training hours assessed by the Employment Standards Officer.

The Board preferred the employee's evidence, finding that the agreed hourly rate was $12.00 and the training period was six hours.

The application was dismissed and the Order to Pay was affirmed.

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

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

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support for a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote but directed that the ballots be segregated and the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the dispute over whether the bargaining unit should be municipal-wide or store-specific.

A dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed strictly pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

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.

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 disbursement of the funds held in trust by the Director in accordance with the settlement, with $1,000 paid to the employee and the remainder returned to the employer, less an administration fee.