Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application pursuant to Minutes of Settlement concluded by the parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where 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 certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant filed an application under the Employment Standards Act against the employer and the Ministry of Labour.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement.

Having regard to the settlement, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

The applicant brought an employment practices application against the responding parties.

Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement reached between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application terminated.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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 majority of the Board found the numerical difference was not significant and ordered a representation vote without sealing the ballot box.

The dissenting member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

The applicant filed an application against the responding parties.

The parties subsequently reached Minutes of Settlement.

Having regard to the settlement, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

Finding the application timely and supported by at least forty percent of the bargaining unit, the Board directed a representation vote.

The union requested the application be dismissed without a vote due to alleged employer interference under section 63(16).

The Board declined to dismiss the application without a vote but ordered the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the interference allegations.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the matter and referred it to the Registrar to be rescheduled for four days of hearing.

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

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

The applicant filed an application against Trade Tech and the Ministry of Labour.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement.

Having regard to the settlement, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

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 that the responding party violated the collective agreement by employing non-members to perform covered work and ordered it to pay $133,390.40 in damages plus filing fees.

The applicant sought a review under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the funds held by the Director in trust to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $900.00 paid to the employee and $857.20 returned to the employer.

The matter was deemed terminated subject to any request by the Ministry of Labour to relist.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $1,700.00 paid to the employee, $1,359.73 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The employer and employee filed cross-applications for review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $1,500 paid to the employee and $1,774.16 returned to the employer.

The employee's application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union raised preliminary objections, arguing the application should be dismissed due to a 10-month delay and a failure to provide particulars.

The Board directed the applicant to respond to the union's allegations and facts by a specified date, failing which the Board would determine the matter based on the materials filed and deem the applicant to have accepted the union's facts.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

After being directed to serve the responding party union and the employer, the applicant informed the Board that the union office was unmanned.

The Board directed the applicant to serve the union by registered mail and notify the Board.

The applicant filed a timely application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

Finding that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit expressed a wish not to be represented by the union, the Board directed a representation vote.

The Board declined the union's request to dismiss the application without a hearing or vote under section 63(16) and ordered that the ballot box not be sealed.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging that his supervisor refused to allow him to visit the First Aid station for an injury sustained at home, and that he was escorted out of the plant after refusing to continue working.

The responding party argued the application failed to establish a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the application under Rule 46 of its Rules of Procedure, finding that even if all alleged facts were true, there was no assertion that the applicant was disciplined for acting in compliance with or seeking to enforce the Act.

The applicants applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote but ordered the ballot box sealed due to the responding party's allegations, including claims under section 63(16) of the Act.