Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant, a corporate director, sought review of a Director Order to Pay issued by the Ministry of Labour for unpaid wages and vacation pay owed to a former employee.

At the hearing, the applicant and the employee reached a settlement regarding the disposition of the funds paid into trust.

The Board ordered the funds held in trust to be disbursed according to the settlement, with $2,000 paid to the employee and $977.01 returned to the applicant.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding employer 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 numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote regardless of which bargaining unit was correct.

The majority ordered a representation vote, directing that ballots cast by individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

The dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the responding party contractor violated the provincial collective agreement by subcontracting the delivery and stockpiling of drywall to a non-union supplier.

The responding party brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the grievance on the basis of res judicata or issue estoppel, relying on a prior Board decision (*Four Seasons Drywall*) which held that the delivery of drywall to a jobsite stockpile by a supplier was not construction work covered by the collective agreement.

The Board applied the test for issue estoppel and found that the same issue had been finally decided in the prior case involving the same union and supplier.

The Board concluded it should not relitigate the issue of whether delivery of drywall constitutes construction work, and dismissed the grievance.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement and requested that the Board issue a consent order incorporating the settlement terms while adjourning the application sine die.

The Board declined to issue the consent order at this time, noting that the parties must choose whether future hearings would address the original application or compliance with the settlement.

The Board adjourned the matter sine die for up to one year, with the option for the parties to withdraw the application immediately if they prefer the settlement to be incorporated into an order.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union and responding employer requested that a representation vote scheduled for October 19, 2001, be rescheduled because affected employees were not scheduled to work that day.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and directed that the representation vote be held on October 22, 2001.

The applicant union filed an application for certification in the construction industry.

A representation vote was held and the ballot box was sealed due to a dispute over the identity of the employer.

The responding party claimed the individuals were employed by Pit-On Construction Company Limited.

The Board directed that notice of the proceeding be given to Pit-On Construction Company Limited.

The Board also exercised its discretion to accept the responding party's late submissions regarding the status of the voters, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to schedule a hearing.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board for final and binding determination.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

Pursuant to the settlement and section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board declared the responding party bound by the collective agreement and found it had violated the agreement by failing to employ union members.

The Board ordered the responding party to pay $25,000 in damages to the applicant.

The employee filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying his claim for termination pay on the basis of wilful misconduct.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the employee nor the employer attended.

As the employee bore the onus of establishing a basis for the claim, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application due to his failure to attend.

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.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant sought a review of an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application because the applicant failed to pay the required monies into trust, as directed in a previous Board decision.

In an application for certification, the Regional Certification meeting was cancelled at the request of one of the parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the parties to file submissions as described in Information Bulletin No. 9 and referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule hearing dates.

The parties reached a settlement regarding compensation issues arising from a prior Board decision finding violations of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant union requested a consent order reflecting the settlement terms.

The Board issued the consent order, directing the responding party to reimburse affected drivers for plate rental fees paid in excess of $100 per month during a specified 15-month period, and setting out a payment schedule and notice requirements.

The applicant union filed an application for certification in the construction industry.

Following a Board decision ordering a representation vote, an intervenor union claimed it already represented the employees in the proposed bargaining unit, rendering the application untimely.

The Board directed that the timeliness issue be determined first at the upcoming hearing, and referred the matter to the Registrar to set a hearing date.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay for unpaid overtime and vacation pay.

The employer provided uncontradicted evidence that it had paid the overtime, but admitted to deducting $450 from the employee's wages to recover a debt based on a verbal agreement.

The Board found that the deductions were prohibited under section 8 of the Employment Standards Act because there was no written authorization.

The Order to Pay was varied and reduced to $450 plus a statutory administration fee.

The applicant was directed by the Registrar to file an application in accordance with the Board's Rules within 10 days.

The applicant failed to file the application within the specified time.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act during her termination grievance arbitration.

The union and the employer requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing.

The Board found that the union's decisions, including not hiring a lawyer and not calling certain witnesses whose evidence would not have altered the outcome, were reasonable and did not constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The Board previously directed a representation vote and noted the employer's response was filed on time.

The applicant subsequently requested that the Board disregard the response because it was filed after 5:00 p.m. on the due date.

The Board exercised its discretion under Rules 41 and 44 of its Rules of Procedure to relieve against the strict application of the rules, noting that the response was received in time to be considered before the vote decision and the applicant alleged no prejudice.

The Board accepted the late response.