Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant and responding party agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent food and beverage workers employed by the responding party.

The Board previously determined that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate will issue to the applicant.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union for failing to file a grievance after she was injured at work and no suitable accommodated position was found.

At the consultation hearing, the union agreed to file a grievance regarding the employer's duty to accommodate, and the employer agreed not to raise timeliness objections.

The Board ordered the union to file the grievance immediately and adjourned the complaint for up to one year, declining the applicant's request to hire her own representative at this stage.

Two individuals sought reconsideration of a 1999 Board decision finding they had engaged in and counselled an unlawful strike.

The request was filed nearly two years after the decision, well beyond the 20-day limit in Rule 96 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The applicants argued they had new evidence from a witness who recently came forward.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that the significant passage of time was extremely prejudicial and compromised the Board's ability to render a fair decision.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of bricklayers, stonemasons, plasterers, and improvers employed by the responding party in the construction industry.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued certificates to the union pursuant to section 160(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

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.

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 defined the appropriate bargaining unit for construction labourers and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed his duty of fair representation application against his union.

The applicant argued the Board disregarded his lack of culpability regarding a suspension grievance and failed to link his unsuccessful bid for union office with the union's handling of his grievances.

The Board declined to reconsider, finding the applicant's reasons fell below the established standards for reconsideration, as the original decision focused on the union's representation rather than the grievance's merits, and found no fault in the union's handling of his grievances.

The applicant union filed applications under sections 69, 1(4), and 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a sale of business or related employer status between the responding parties, as well as unfair labour practices.

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

The Board issued a decision incorporating the settlement, declaring that Bomatic Inc. is the successor employer to Mega Blow Mouldings Ltd. and is bound to the existing collective agreement.

Bomatic Inc. also agreed to pay $8,000 in union dues arrears, upon which the union would withdraw its applications.

The employer filed an Application for Review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The Board previously directed the employer to provide a breakdown of statutory deductions to account for the difference between the Order amount and the amount submitted to the Director.

The employer failed to provide the information.

The Board ordered the employer to provide the requested information by August 31, 2001, failing which the application would be dismissed.

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/Participate, entitling the applicant to request a default determination.

The intervenor sought to participate but did not file the required form or pay the filing fee.

The Board directed that if the intervenor wished to prevent a default determination, it must file the required form and pay the fee by a specified date, failing which the applicant's request for a default determination would be considered.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay in the amount of $1,477,025.12.

The Board previously directed the applicant to pay the amount into trust or provide an irrevocable letter of credit by August 16, 2001, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant failed to do so.

Consequently, the application for review was dismissed, despite the Board noting that on the face of the documents, it seemed unlikely the applicant was in fact an employer liable in respect of the Order.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board amended its decision dated August 7, 2001, to correct an error in the bargaining unit description.

The amended decision defines the appropriate bargaining unit for employees of Gibson Holdings (Ontario) Ltd. in Loyalist Township, excluding supervisors, office and clerical staff, and registered and graduate nurses.

An amended certificate will issue to the applicant union.

The applicant filed a termination application seeking to decertify the union, and a representation vote was held where two individuals voted against continued representation.

The union also referred a construction grievance to arbitration and sought to have it determined before the termination application.

The Board declined to consolidate the applications or determine the order of proceedings at this stage, instead setting both matters down for a one-day hearing where the assigned panel will determine the manner of proceeding.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, sought to withdraw its applications against the responding party, Casino Rama Services Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications.

The Board issued a procedural direction regarding a union termination application and a construction industry grievance.

The union requested that the construction grievance be determined before the termination application, arguing it was necessary to resolve voter eligibility issues.

The Board found no apparent dependency between the two matters but scheduled both applications to be heard on the same day, leaving the manner of proceeding to be determined by the panel assigned to the hearing.

The responding union requested that the Board dismiss an unfair labour practice application on the basis that an individual employee lacks standing to bring an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act for alleged contraventions of sections 72 and 74.

The Board declined the request, holding that individual employees do have standing to bring such applications.

The applicant union referred a construction industry grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the responding employer failed to make timely remittances to various health, welfare, and pension funds.

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

The Board issued a consent order declaring the employer bound by the collective agreement, declaring it had violated the agreement, and directing the employer to pay $10,599.58 in outstanding remittances and $741.87 in liquidated damages.