Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant, Teamsters Union Local 880, requested to withdraw its application against Tenneco Automotive.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to make an order under the Employment Standards Act.

At the hearing, the applicant withdrew the appeal.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the matter.

The employer applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay unpaid wages, vacation pay, and reimbursement for unauthorized deductions to a former employee.

The dispute centered on the calculation of wages under a commission-based compensation system paid one month in arrears.

The Board recalculated the amounts owed by deducting an advance paid in the first month of the commission arrangement from the final commissions earned.

The Board allowed the application in part, amending the order to pay to reflect the recalculated amount of $2,678.70 owed to the employee.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent 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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the specified bargaining unit of carpenters and carpenters' apprentices.

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 to warrant a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with segregated ballots for individuals in disputed positions.

The applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with half the wages returning to the employer and half paid to the employee, while the administration fee was retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% 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 for certification and noted the potential application of the one-year bar under section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union, CAW-Canada, applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor union, SEIU Local 220.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of CAW-Canada, and with no representations filed by the parties, the Board granted the application.

The Board declared CAW-Canada the successor trade union for the bargaining unit of Registered Practical Nurses employed by the responding party employer.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was held, but the union failed to secure more than 50 per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Act regarding the effect on any subsequent applications filed within one year.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties entered into written Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer.

As the settlement disposed of all issues in dispute, the Board terminated the application in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The employer and the employee entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to disburse the $11,000 held in trust by the Director.

The Board ordered the funds to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $5,000 to the employer, $5,000 to the employee, and $1,000 retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and terminated the application.

The applicants in two related Ontario Labour Relations Board matters requested to withdraw their respective applications.

The Board granted leave and both applications were withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act approximately two months after the 45-day deadline.

The applicant requested an extension of time, claiming it did not receive the Order to Pay until contacted by a collection agency.

The Board directed the responding parties to file submissions regarding the extension request.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties entered into written Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer.

As the settlement disposed of all issues in dispute, the Board terminated the application in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees.

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

The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for electricians and electricians' apprentices employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate.

Pursuant to section 160(1) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board issued two certificates: one for the industrial, commercial and institutional sector province-wide, and another for all other sectors in the specified geographic areas.

The responding union and CAMI Automotive requested an extension of time to file their responses due to ongoing collective negotiations.

The applicant objected.

The Board granted the extension, noting the requested period was short and would not prejudice the applicant.

The applicant, Dufferin Aggregates, sought to withdraw its application pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement dated August 15, 2001.

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

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to continue with a grievance regarding his job classification.

The union argued that the application was premature because the dispute was being processed through the job evaluation scheme under the collective agreement.

The Board agreed, finding the application premature, and terminated it without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a fresh application after the collective agreement process had concluded.