6 total
Application dismissed for failing to plead any facts disclosing a violation of the Act.
The applicant filed a complaint against the union but failed to set out any facts in the application, instead advising that witnesses and documentation would be provided later.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application at a consultation, noting that the Board's Rules require applicants to set out all facts relied upon so that the responding parties know the case they have to meet.
The Board found the applicant's explanation for failing to comply unacceptable and noted that nothing in the attached documents suggested a violation of the Act.
Certification application dismissed for failure to timely file representations establishing the identity of the employer.
The applicant union filed a certification application.
The responding party asserted it was not the employer of the proposed bargaining unit members, claiming they were employed by various personnel agencies.
The Board directed the parties to file detailed representations.
The applicant failed to file its representations on time, arguing it believed the identity of the employer was a 'status dispute' under Information Bulletin #4, which would allow a later filing.
The Board ruled that the identity of the employer is not a status dispute, refused to accept the applicant's late submissions, and dismissed the certification application for failing to establish a prima facie case that the responding party was the employer.
Second identical jurisdictional dispute complaint dismissed due to prior failure to attend hearing.
The complainants filed a jurisdictional dispute complaint under section 91 of the Labour Relations Act, identical to an earlier complaint that had been dismissed due to their failure to attend a pre-hearing conference.
The respondents objected to the Board entertaining the new complaint, arguing res judicata and abuse of process.
The Board declined to apply res judicata, as the earlier dismissal was not an adjudication on the merits.
However, the Board exercised its discretion under section 91(1) to refuse to entertain the complaint, finding that the complainants lost their opportunity for a hearing through their own inadvertence and that reopening the matter would not serve any good industrial relations purpose.
Union certified without a vote; employee petition rejected due to foreman's involvement.
The applicant union sought certification.
A group of employees filed a petition in opposition, which would have reduced the union's support below the 55% required for automatic certification.
The Board found that a foreman was directly involved in soliciting a signature for the petition, rendering it involuntary.
The employer and an objecting employee requested a representation vote due to the passage of time and alleged changes in the workforce.
The Board declined to order a vote, emphasizing the need for a fixed terminal date to assess membership support.
The application for certification was granted.
Employer ordered to produce financial statements relevant to its defence in an unlawful lockout application.
In an application alleging an unlawful lockout, the union sought the production of the employer's financial statements via a subpoena duces tecum.
The employer refused to produce the documents, arguing they were confidential and that it would only produce them if ordered by a court.
The Board ruled that the financial documents were arguably relevant because the employer had put its financial situation in issue as the reason for reducing employees' hours.
The Board directed that the documents be deposited with the Registrar, noting that confidentiality does not privilege documents from disclosure and that an implied undertaking protects against their use for collateral purposes.
Complainant permitted to introduce prior inconsistent statement to potentially declare its own witness hostile.
During a hearing before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the complainant union sought leave to cross-examine its own witness, alleging the witness made a prior inconsistent statement and was hostile.
The Board reviewed the distinction between an 'adverse' and 'hostile' witness under section 24 of The Evidence Act and relevant jurisprudence, notably Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company v. Hanes.
The Board held that the complainant could introduce the alleged prior inconsistent statement; if proven, this statement could then be used as a factor to persuade the Board to declare the witness hostile, thereby permitting full cross-examination.
