Ontario Labour Relations Board

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

The responding party claimed it had no employees and used subcontractors.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of at least forty percent in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

The employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing regarding cross-applications under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, to permit it to prepare for upcoming bargaining dates.

The union opposed the request.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the adjournment, noting that the applications concerned the composition of the union's bargaining committee, which appeared to be an impediment to bargaining, and that resolving these issues prior to bargaining made sense.

The applicant, who was the victim of a vicious aggravated sexual assault by a co-worker, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union.

The union had assisted the attacker in obtaining a leave of absence to serve his criminal sentence without consulting the applicant or considering her interests.

The Board found that the union breached its duty under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to balance the competing interests of the two bargaining unit members and ignoring the applicant's concerns.

The leave of absence agreement was set aside, and the union was directed to reconsider the matter after obtaining the applicant's input.

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

The Board found that the applicant submitted sufficient membership evidence to order a representation vote, despite some ambiguity in the application forms regarding the specific local union.

The responding party disputed its status as a construction employer and filed a notice under section 8.1.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with the ballot boxes sealed pending the resolution of the employer's status and any remaining issues regarding the membership evidence.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

Following a representation vote under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, a dispute arose over whether a ballot marked with both a shaded circle and an 'X' was spoiled.

The Board applied the test from National Starch and Chemical Co., finding that the voter's choice was clearly indicated and the voter's identity was not disclosed.

The ballot was counted in favour of OPSEU.

Based on the vote results and the parties' agreement, OPSEU was appointed as the bargaining agent, and the bargaining rights of the other unions were terminated.

The United Steelworkers of America 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.

As a result, 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 Act.

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

The responding parties filed timely notices under section 8.1, raising disputes about the number of employees and the identity of the employer.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board directed that a vote be held for the proposed bargaining unit of construction labourers, but ordered the ballot boxes sealed pending the resolution of the disputes regarding the related employer declaration and the number of eligible employees.

The applicant union sought reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed its application for certification.

The original dismissal was based on the fact that the membership evidence submitted referred to 'Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 607' rather than the applicant's name, 'Construction and Allied Workers Local Union 607'.

The applicant argued that the Board had previously accepted this evidence in another file and that it had changed its name.

The Board found that the previous decision accepting the evidence was erroneous and lacked reasons.

The Board emphasized its exclusive role in scrutinizing membership evidence and concluded that the evidence filed did not establish an appearance of membership in the applicant.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application for the termination of bargaining rights in April 2000.

After providing particulars in June 2000, no further steps were taken.

The Board directed the applicant to advise what it wishes to do with the application by October 10, 2001, failing which the application will be terminated.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant sought a review of a refusal to issue an order under 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 sought leave to withdraw its application for certification after a representation vote had been held and the ballot box sealed, advising that all outstanding issues had been resolved.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request to withdraw the application pursuant to section 7(8) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and noted the potential application of the section 7(10) bar to any subsequent application filed within one year.

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 responding parties requested an extension of time to file their responses to the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to September 7, 2001, and reminded the responding parties of the requirement under the Board's Rules of Procedure to copy all documents and correspondence to all other parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural direction allowing the responding party and The Hudson Bay Company to file their response or intervention by September 10, 2001.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decisions dated July 30 and August 30, 2001.

The Board noted that the correct Order to Pay number subject to the application for review was D 04914, not D 04314.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent construction labourers and carpenters employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent 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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant sought a review of an employment standards officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for wages and vacation pay.

The application was filed 57 days late.

The applicant requested an extension of time under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act, claiming she waited for the appeal papers after being verbally informed of the decision.

The Board found this explanation invalid for such a significant delay and noted the applicant did not act with diligence and expedition.

The request for an extension of time was denied.