Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant requested leave to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The union requested that the employer's application to terminate bargaining rights be held in abeyance until the union's related employer and sale of business application is determined.

The Board found the request reasonable but directed the employer to file submissions before making a final decision.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification for employees currently represented by the intervenor.

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.

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

If neither party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.

In an application for certification, the responding employer failed to file its response within the required two-day period.

The employer subsequently filed a late response challenging the voter eligibility of two individuals.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to relieve against the strict time limits for filing a response, finding that the union would suffer irremediable prejudice given the mandatory one-year bar on subsequent applications under section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act if the vote failed.

The Board directed that the ballots of the two disputed individuals not be counted.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding party failed to pay correct wages and vacation pay to four workers.

The responding party 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 responding party to have accepted all facts stated in the application.

The Board found the responding party violated the collective agreement and ordered it to pay $2,402.00 in damages, plus $614.00 in costs.

The applicant and responding parties agreed to adjourn a one-day hearing scheduled for September 25, 2001, while the intervenor opposed the request.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the written submissions and found it appropriate to grant the adjournment.

The matter will continue on the previously scheduled dates in October 2001.

The applicant filed a termination application to decertify the responding party union as the bargaining agent for electricians and apprentices employed by Trevor Phillips Electric Limited and/or 1087325 Ontario Inc. A representation vote was held, and more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union.

The union advised it would not call evidence or attend the scheduled hearing, and the applicant requested the matter be processed in the usual manner.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit and ordered the destruction of the ballots after 30 days.

The applicant employer appealed an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

The applicant and one of the responding employees entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the disbursement of funds held in trust by the Director in accordance with the settlement, paying $1,500 to the employee and returning $1,203.62 to the employer.

The appeal regarding the second employee was scheduled to proceed to a hearing.

The applicants applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The applicants sought to have their unfair labour practice complaint relisted for hearing to address remaining requests for relief, and Locals 6, 7, and 25 sought intervenor status.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board scheduled one further day of hearing to hear arguments on the remaining relief, noting doubts about granting much of it.

The Board denied intervenor status to the Locals, finding they lacked a direct and legal interest in the specific complaint.

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, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The Board directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Act regarding the effect on any subsequent application filed within one year.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was directed by the Board, but no ballots were cast by employees in the bargaining unit.

As a result, the Board dismissed the application and noted the potential application of the one-year bar under section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act for any subsequent applications.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where 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 employer.

The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matters will be deemed terminated without further notice if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicants requested reconsideration of a previous Board decision that directed them to provide membership addresses to the parent international union so it could mail a remedial notice.

The applicants sought to extend the time for members to respond to the notice, effectively attempting to avoid providing the addresses.

The Board dismissed the request, finding it was an attempt to restrict internal debate within the union and that the original order was necessary to remedy the parent union's prior violations of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and ordered that the membership evidence be transferred to a related application for certification in Board File No. 1709-01-R.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least 40% of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote but ordered the ballot box sealed because the parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit description.

The responding party's section 8.1 notice was found to be of no effect as there was no disagreement on the applicant's estimate of individuals in the proposed unit.

The employer raised a preliminary objection that the union's construction industry grievance should be dismissed due to delay.

The union filed the grievance in May 2001, alleging the employer used non-union workers for carpentry work on a golf course project starting in June 2000.

The Board found that the union ought to have known about the alleged breaches by August 2000.

The Board held that the grievance was a continuing grievance, meaning the 90-day time limit applied to each repetition of the breach.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion under section 48(16) of the Labour Relations Act to extend the time limits for earlier breaches, as the union failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The grievance was permitted to proceed, but relief was limited to violations occurring within 90 days prior to the filing date.

The applicants sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an employment standards officer regarding severance pay.

On the day of the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement wherein the applicant union agreed to pay $10,000 in severance pay to each of the three responding parties.

The Board issued a consent order reflecting the settlement terms, directed the Ministry of Labour to refund the funds paid into trust, and terminated the applications.