A. Haward

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant had 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 among the eligible employees.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging unjust termination of two employees who left the job site due to bad weather when no foreman was present.

The responding employer failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the employer was deemed to have accepted the facts stated in the application.

The Board found the terminations unjust, ordered immediate reinstatement, compensation for lost wages and benefits, and payment of the applicant's filing costs.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the matter sine die for a period not to exceed one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board referred the matter to the Registrar to be rescheduled, noting the parties' request to relist the hearing for June 22, 2001.

The Board directed that if the matter is not relisted within one year, it will be deemed automatically terminated.

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

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

Despite a dispute over the bargaining unit description and the number of employees, the Board directed a representation vote for the largest possible voting constituency, leaving the appropriateness of the unit to be determined after the vote.

The applicant union and responding employer 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 would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

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 union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, noting that the union's objections regarding the applicant's status and alleged employer involvement could be raised before the panel scheduled to hear the application.

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

The incumbent union intervened.

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 directed a representation vote to be held for the largest possible voting constituency, noting that the applicant's status as a trade union and the appropriateness of the bargaining unit would be determined at a subsequent hearing.

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

The intervenor, which currently represents the employees, disputed the proposed bargaining unit and asserted no employees were working on the application date.

The Board found that the applicant filed sufficient membership evidence and directed a representation vote of the largest possible voting constituency, deferring the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit and the applicant's trade union status until after the vote.

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

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 Act.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency.

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

The responding party and intervenor disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate but noted a significant numerical difference between the parties' estimates.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with the ballot box sealed until the parties agree or the Board orders otherwise.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking to displace the intervenor union as the bargaining agent for a unit of construction workers.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that it appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

Consequently, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace the intervenor as the bargaining agent for a unit of construction workers employed by 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 proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support.

The Board ordered a representation vote, with the ballot box to be sealed pending resolution of the numerical difference between the parties.

The applicant union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking to displace the intervenor as the bargaining agent for carpenters and carpenter apprentices employed by the responding party.

The responding party failed to file a timely response.

Based on the application materials, the Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, deferring the intervenor's objections regarding the applicant's trade union status and the validity of the membership evidence to a subsequent hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the intervenor union as the bargaining agent for a unit of roofers employed by the responding party in the construction industry.

The Board found that the applicant had sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

Because 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, the Board ordered a representation vote and directed that the ballot box be sealed pending resolution of the numerical difference.

A subsequent corrigendum corrected errors in the bargaining unit description and clarified that the responding party did not propose a different bargaining unit.

The applicant union filed a grievance referral against the responding party.

On agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant sought to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

In a construction industry certification application, the responding employer requested that the Board provide it with the completed Form A-74 Declaration Verifying Membership Evidence, arguing it was necessary to decide whether to maintain its section 8.1 challenge under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board directed the applicant union to provide submissions on whether the Board should change its longstanding administrative practice of not providing this document in construction applications, before making a determination.

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

The responding party filed a section 8.1 notice challenging the employee estimate, asserted that its labour relations fall under federal jurisdiction, and disputed the proposed bargaining unit.

Without determining the appropriate bargaining unit or the jurisdictional issue, the Board directed that a representation vote take place among employees in the proposed voting constituency.

The Board ordered the ballot box sealed pending the determination of the outstanding issues.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act.

Prior to the calling of evidence, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement resolving the majority of the issues, including the fabrication of fixture chains and retroactive premium pay for improperly paid foremen.

The Board issued orders and directions in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement and adjourned the remaining issues sine die.