Ontario Labour Relations Board

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

The responding party objected, arguing that an oral agreement between the parties barred the union from applying for certification.

The Board rejected this argument, noting that parties cannot contract out of the Act.

Finding that the union had established sufficient membership support, the Board directed a representation vote for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

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 per cent 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 in the voting constituency.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant trade union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued certificates to the applicant.

The certificates cover journeymen and apprentice electricians in the employ of the responding party in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector across Ontario, and in all other sectors in specified geographic areas.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The responding party employer raised a preliminary objection, arguing the application was barred under section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act because a previous application by a different union had been dismissed within the past year.

The Board had previously directed a representation vote without addressing the objection.

The Board noted its practice of conducting a speedy representation vote before resolving complex legal issues like a section 10(3) bar.

The Board referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule a hearing to determine whether the application must be dismissed under section 10(3).

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

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued a consent order declaring that the responding parties were bound to the Principal Agreement and had violated its union security provisions.

The Board ordered damages of $100,000, with $2,000 payable immediately and $10,000 held in abeyance subject to future compliance.

The employer and the employee both sought a review of an employment standards officer's order to pay.

During the hearing, the parties reached a partial settlement regarding outstanding wages, commissions, and vacation pay.

The Board dismissed the employer's application for review, ordered the release of funds held in trust to the employee, and directed the employer to pay an additional sum.

The Board scheduled a further hearing to determine the remaining issue of whether the employee was constructively dismissed and entitled to termination pay.

The applicant filed an appeal of an inspector's order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act beyond the 30-day time limit and requested an extension.

The Ministry of Labour did not oppose the extension, but the union argued the Board lacked discretion to extend the time limit.

The Board held that section 61(1) of the Act is clear and there is no statutory provision or Board rule permitting an extension of time for appealing an inspector's order.

The appeal and the request for suspension of the order were dismissed as untimely.

Following a finding that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, a dispute arose regarding the Board's remedial order directing the provision of independent legal counsel.

The applicant contended he was entitled to separate legal counsel at the union's expense, while the union argued the order only provided the applicant a choice in selecting the counsel to represent the union at arbitration.

The Board clarified that the order was intended to give the applicant input into the selection of the lawyer representing the union, not to provide separate counsel, as the union retains carriage of the grievance.

The Board, on its own initiative, set dates for a pre-hearing conference and preliminary motions in a long-standing dispute between various locals and conferences of the bricklayers' unions.

Attempts to arrange mutually agreeable dates had failed, and the Board determined that the outstanding litigation was prolonging the dispute.

The Board scheduled a meeting with counsel to discuss preliminary issues and set dates for hearing preliminary motions.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to file a grievance regarding her dismissal and termination of disability benefits.

The union and intervenor employer requested the Board dismiss the application, noting the union had since filed two grievances on her behalf.

The Board exercised its discretion not to proceed, finding that the applicant had already achieved the only remedy available against the union through this application.

The dismissal was without prejudice to future applications if the union's delay caused prejudice or if future representation issues arose.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent shift engineers and building facility operators employed by the responding party.

The employees were currently represented by the intervenor union.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent of the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held.

The intervenor's objection regarding the timeliness of the application was deferred to a future hearing, noting that the existing collective agreement appeared to expire shortly.

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 in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with segregated ballots for the disputed position of group leader.

The applicant requested an extension of time to file materials in support of its trade union status.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to September 4, 2001.

The applicant union requested to change the date of a representation vote from August 31, 2001, to September 4, 2001, because some employees would allegedly be out of town.

The employer opposed the request.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that the applicant controls the timing of the application and that it is the Board's usual practice to hold the vote within five business days, even if some employees are absent.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board granted the request, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated without further notice if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The panel remained seized of the matter and offered continued mediation assistance.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification in the construction industry.

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 proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate but noted that the applicant's membership evidence might represent less than 40 per cent of the individuals in the unit.

Consequently, the Board ordered a representation vote and directed that the ballot box be sealed until further order.

The applicant filed an application to terminate bargaining rights under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant requested that the Board not order a representation vote at this time because a similar application was filed in the federal jurisdiction, raising a jurisdictional issue.

The Board held the application in abeyance until the applicant advises that it be processed.

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, but requested a delay because its representative was out of town.

The Board found no basis to delay the vote.

Finding that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit appeared to be members of the applicant, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to post a required bond after repeated late payments of contributions.

The responding party failed to file a response or notice of intent to defend.

The Board deemed the facts in the application accepted, found the employer violated the collective agreement, and ordered the employer to post a bond of $16,280.35 and pay costs.

The Board previously amended a proposed project agreement.

The proponent and several unions sought reconsideration.

Local 539 alleged the Board used incorrect wage rates in its calculations.

The Board directed Local 539 to provide correct figures and calculations if it wished to pursue the matter.

Locals 663 and 1592 requested the amendment apply to their members, but the Board dismissed their requests because they failed to file timely challenges or notices of disapproval.

The Board directed the applicant to respond to the proponent's timely reconsideration request.