Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant employer filed an appeal under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act against an Order to Pay more than five months after the order was issued.

The statutory deadline for such appeals is 45 days.

As the applicant provided no reason for the delay, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to extend the time for filing and dismissed the application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to assign work to its members in violation of the collective agreement.

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

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

The Board found the employer bound by the collective agreement, declared a violation, and ordered the employer to pay $18,850.24 in damages plus the Board filing fee.

The applicant filed an application for review of an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act but failed to pay the required monies into trust.

Under section 68 of the Act, an application for review is not properly made unless the amount is paid to the Director in trust.

The Board found it had no discretion to extend the time for paying monies into trust and dismissed the application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The Board noted the potential application of section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to any subsequent application filed within one year.

The applicant, a waitress, sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision refusing her termination pay on the basis of wilful misconduct.

The employer alleged she participated in a card game with customers and failed to report another employee looking at payroll records.

The employer did not attend the hearing.

The Board found the applicant's limited involvement in the alleged viewing of pay statements by another employee did not meet the standard of wilful misconduct.

The application was allowed and the employer was ordered to pay termination pay in lieu of notice.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its applications against the responding party employer.

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

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following his termination for theft.

The union had grieved the termination and taken the matter to arbitration, where the grievance was dismissed.

The Board dismissed the application on a prima facie basis without a hearing, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the arbitration and failed to plead facts showing the union acted in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for its decision not to advance his discharge grievance to arbitration.

The applicant was discharged for allegedly smoking marijuana on duty, which he denied.

Following an initial consultation, the Board determined it could not finally dispose of the matter based solely on the information provided.

The Board directed that the consultation continue, requiring the union to call evidence subject to cross-examination to establish the basis for its decision not to arbitrate the grievance.

The applicant union filed a grievance alleging the responding party employed non-members for work within the ICI sector.

The intervenor union argued the work, constructing a municipal skateboard park, fell within the roads or heavy engineering sector.

The Board determined that the end use of the project was exclusively recreational and not related to transportation.

Therefore, the Board declared the construction of the skateboard park came within the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry.

The applicant union and the responding employer concluded Minutes of Settlement regarding inspections following work refusals.

Based on this understanding, the applicant sought to withdraw its application.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued an amendment to its September 28, 2001 decision regarding a bargaining unit description.

The amendment corrected an error where three positions were omitted from the bargaining unit description for employees at the London Health Sciences Centre.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations 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 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 applicant, no statements of desire to make representations were filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application for review of an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act but failed to pay the required monies into trust.

The applicant requested an extension of time to pay the funds.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that under section 68 of the Act, an application for review is not properly made unless the monies are paid into trust.

The Board's discretion to extend the time for applying for a review does not include the power to extend the time for paying monies into trust.

The Board declined to deal with the request for an extension.

The applicant trade union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party claimed there were no employees in the proposed bargaining unit on the application date, an issue deferred for later determination.

Finding that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union, the Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was held, but not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed following the vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the parties' attention to the potential one-year bar on subsequent applications under section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered procedural requests regarding an application for termination of bargaining rights and a related unfair labour practice application.

The Board ordered that the two applications be heard together due to overlapping allegations.

The employer's request for an extension of time to file a response to the unfair labour practice application was denied.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The Board dismissed the application because it was deficient in several respects, including missing addresses, missing delivery times, and most significantly, failing to provide original evidence of employees' wishes not to be represented by the responding party as required by section 63(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.