Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision.

Prior to the hearing, the parties advised the Board that they had resolved the matter.

The Board terminated the proceeding and cancelled the scheduled hearing.

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 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 Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local One brought applications against Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission and related entities.

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

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 advised the Board that no agreement had been reached with the union regarding his legal representation, a claim the union disputed.

The Board directed the Manager of Field Services to assign a Labour Relations Officer to consult with the parties on the matter and report back to the Board.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding party company retaliated against it for referring a dispute to arbitration by restricting employees' ability to take vacation prior to or during a statutory holiday week.

The union requested an expedited hearing because the company refused to clarify its position on future statutory holidays, including Thanksgiving.

The Board declined the request for an expedited hearing, noting that the employees would not lose their actual vacation entitlement and any harm could be remedied in the normal course.

The Board directed a Labour Relations Officer to consult with the parties.

The responding party and intervenor requested an extension of time to file their responses, which the Board granted.

The responding party also contended that the application failed to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board found that the application did disclose a prima facie case and referred the matter to the Registrar.

The applicant brought an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Having regard to a previous decision dated August 27, 2001, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for September 12, 2001.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment on consent of the parties and rescheduled the matter for November 15, 2001.

The applicant sought to adjourn the application sine die.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant employer sought to review an Order to Pay issued under the Employment Standards Act.

The affected employee had concurrently pursued a wrongful dismissal action in court, which was ultimately successful, and leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was denied.

The employee subsequently confirmed he no longer asserted any claim to the monies held in trust for the ESA claim.

Given the circumstances and the positions of the parties, the adjudicator vacated the Order to Pay and directed the return of all trust monies to the applicant.

The applicant union filed an application against the responding party employer.

On consent of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, to be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made within that time.

The Board scheduled a consultation for September 18, 2001.

The responding union and the intervenor employer requested an adjournment because the date fell on a Jewish holiday.

The applicant did not consent.

The Board clarified that its general practice requiring consent for adjournments does not apply to requests based on religious observance.

The Board apologized for its initial handling of the request and adjourned the consultation to October 10, 2001.

The applicant union filed an application against the responding party employer.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.

The applicant failed to file submissions as directed by a previous Board decision.

Consequently, the Board terminated the application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding employer failed to make remittances under the provincial collective agreement.

The responding party failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend within the required time.

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

The Board found the employer bound by the collective agreement, declared it had violated the agreement by failing to make remittances, and ordered it to pay $32,208.53 in damages plus $214.00 in costs.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof and adduced no evidence, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.