Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant requested to withdraw her application via a letter dated October 4, 2001.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

Following a representation vote in which more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Teletech Canada Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application against the responding party.

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, after which it will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted a consent request to adjourn two applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

If neither party requests to proceed within that time, the applications will be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant employer brought an application under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a determination that its PSU Case Manager exercised managerial functions and was employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations.

The responding union did not dispute the application.

The Board determined that the individual was not an employee for the purposes of the Act pursuant to section 1(3)(b).

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural direction setting a deadline of October 22, 2001, for the employer to respond to submissions filed by the union.

The Carpenters union sought an order directing the employer to produce further documents, including site meeting minutes and invoices, relating to the layoff of two employees.

The Board ordered the employer to produce site meeting minutes if they were in its control, but declined to order production of invoices, finding them irrelevant to the issue of the layoffs.

The Board noted that the employer would not be permitted to rely on any document at the hearing that it had not already produced.

Counsel for the responding party requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for October 12, 2001.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment and directed that the matter be heard on October 25, 2001, alongside a related file.

During a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the applicant's counsel advised that a summonsed witness failed to attend.

The Board scheduled continuation dates and directed the witness to attend the next hearing date, warning that failure to do so could result in an arrest warrant or punishment for contempt.

The applicant was ordered to personally serve the decision on the witness.

The parties executed and filed Minutes of Settlement on the day scheduled for consultation.

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

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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

The applicants, directors of several health centres, appealed under section 58.22(2) of the Employment Standards Act.

The matter was scheduled for a hearing, but the applicants received extremely short notice.

Several applicants wrote to the Board requesting an adjournment.

At the hearing, only counsel for the Ministry of Labour attended.

The Ministry consented to the adjournment request, and the adjudicator adjourned the hearing to a later date.

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

The responding employer failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

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

The Board declared that the employer was bound by the collective agreement and had violated it by failing to hire union members.

The Board directed the employer to produce relevant documents and scheduled a hearing to assess damages.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment to October 25, 2001.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its section 96 application under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 against one of the responding parties, Brampton Centre for Sports and Entertainment, while continuing against the other.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the application against Brampton Centre for Sports and Entertainment.

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, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

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

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under the Labour Relations Act, alleging the employer improperly laid off a union steward and issued an unwarranted disciplinary letter.

The employer failed to attend the hearing.

The Board accepted the union's evidence that the project was not nearing completion and other electricians remained employed.

The Board declared the employer violated the collective agreement, ordered the rescission of the disciplinary letter, and directed the employer to pay $749.00.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party and the intervenor, Fort William First Nation, argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to conduct a representation vote because the project was located on First Nation lands, asserting jurisdiction belonged to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board.

The Board deferred the jurisdictional arguments to be heard after the vote and directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.