6 total
Board corrected an error in the appearances listed in a previous decision.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision to correct an error in the appearances listed in its previous decision dated October 22, 2001.
The appearances were amended to correctly reflect the representatives for the applicant and the responding party.
Fresh representation vote ordered for union certification with specific voter eligibility dates.
The applicant union requested a fresh representation vote following a previous Board decision.
The Board ordered the vote to be held on October 26, 2001, for the agreed bargaining unit.
Individuals employed on May 4, 2001, were deemed eligible to vote, with a direction that ballots of individuals no longer employed by the responding party be segregated pending further agreement or order.
Board dismisses both parties' reconsideration requests regarding remedies for employer unfair labour practices during organizing campaign.
The union and the employer both sought reconsideration of a previous Board decision that found the employer committed unfair labour practices during a union organizing campaign.
The employer challenged the Board's refusal to bifurcate the hearing, its decision to allow the union to argue damages, and several specific performance orders, including compulsory union meetings and providing employee contact information.
The union sought to expand the scope of damages, recover legal costs, and adjust the timeline for a fresh representation vote.
The Board dismissed all reconsideration requests, finding no important issues of Board policy or obvious errors that warranted varying the original orders, and directed the employer to immediately provide the union with the employees' home addresses and telephone numbers.
Representation vote set aside and new vote ordered due to employer-sponsored intimidation and death threats.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint and sought to set aside a representation vote that resulted in a tie.
The union alleged that the employer hired two individuals, who were known gang members, to intimidate and threaten union organizers and supporters with violence, including death threats, if the union won the vote.
The Board found that the employer was responsible for the intimidation, which violated several sections of the Labour Relations Act.
The Board set aside the representation vote, ordered a new vote, and granted extensive remedial relief, including union access to the workplace and reimbursement of organizing costs.
Employer's motions to exclude evidence of alleged intimidators' criminal records and gang affiliations dismissed.
During a hearing for union certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, the responding employer brought two evidentiary motions.
The employer sought to strike the admitted criminal records of two individuals alleged to have intimidated employees, and to exclude the anticipated testimony of a police intelligence officer regarding the individuals' gang affiliations.
The Board dismissed both motions, finding the evidence arguably relevant to the employees' perceptions and the employer's decision to hire the individuals, while reserving the right to determine the ultimate evidentiary weight at the close of proceedings.
Board condones late filing of union's unfair labour practice complaint and declines to impose certification bar.
The union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging intimidation of employees prior to a representation vote, but failed to file a detailed statement of representations within the five-day period required by the Board's rules.
The employer raised preliminary objections, arguing the complaint was untimely, failed to disclose a prima facie case, and that a bar should be imposed on the union's certification application due to a prior withdrawal.
The Board condoned the late filing, finding the balance of convenience favoured the union and the employer suffered no significant prejudice.
The Board also found the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and declined to impose a bar, as the prior withdrawal was to correct an employee estimate and not an abuse of process.
