Ontario Labour Relations Board

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Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.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

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

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union filed applications against the Ministry of Correctional Services Maplehurst Correctional Complex and the Ministry of Labour.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision extending the deadline for the responding parties to file their responses to September 24, 2001.

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 no party requested to proceed within that time.

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 union filed applications under section 69 and subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, along with an unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant sought production of documents and requested permission to add facts and remedies after disclosure.

The responding parties objected and requested an order prohibiting the applicant from relying on undisclosed facts, as well as an extension of time to file their responses.

The Board declined to issue the prohibition order at this stage, noting it was premature, but granted the responding parties an extension of time to file their responses.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding party employer failed to remit contributions required by the provincial collective agreement.

The responding party failed to file a response or a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

Proceeding by way of default, the Board accepted the applicant's allegations as true, declared the responding party bound by the collective agreement, and ordered it to pay $5,531.14 in damages and $664.00 in costs.

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.

In an application for certification, the Board previously directed a representation vote based on the broader of two proposed bargaining unit descriptions.

The responding hospital subsequently withdrew its proposed unit and agreed to the applicant union's smaller proposed unit.

The Board issued a decision amending the voting constituency to reflect the agreed-upon smaller unit, eliminating the need to segregate ballots, and changing the poll location on consent.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

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 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 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 filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for withdrawing his discharge grievance.

The applicant had been discharged for allegedly failing to follow call-in procedures, but the union negotiated a settlement that would have reinstated him pending an independent medical evaluation regarding his work restrictions.

The applicant refused to sign the standard medical authorization form required for the evaluation, erroneously believing it would waive his right to sue the employer.

Because of his refusal, the employer withdrew the reinstatement offer and the union withdrew the grievance.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The employer and one of the affected employees entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board approved the settlement, ordered the disbursement of funds held in trust by the Director in accordance with the agreement, and terminated the application as it related to that specific employee.

The application regarding the remaining employees was referred to the Registrar to be scheduled for a hearing.

The responding party requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for September 14, 2001, due to travel difficulties resulting from the shutdown of airports in North America.

The Board granted the adjournment and referred the matter to the Registrar to be rescheduled.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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.

The Board directed a representation vote to be taken.

Due to a dispute over the bargaining unit description and whether the employer is a construction employer, the Board ordered that the ballots be segregated and the ballot box sealed.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a violation of section 57(1).

The responding party requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case, arguing the complaint relates to an alleged violation of the collective agreement and should be the subject of a grievance.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions in response within five days, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision, alleging the employer failed to comply with a settlement because the settlement cheque was not honoured by the bank.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing.

At the hearing, the employer provided evidence satisfying the Board that the settlement cheque had indeed been cashed by the applicant.

The application for review was dismissed.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application following a Memorandum of Settlement dated August 22, 2001.

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