Anthony Brown

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the Brock Township Public Library Board.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Board granted certification.

The Board declined to remain seized of a dispute regarding the inclusion of CAP Trainers in the bargaining unit, directing the parties to resolve the issue during collective bargaining or through arbitration or an application under section 114(2) of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire filed to make representations, the Board found the bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union requested particulars.

The Board reviewed the application and found it contained voluminous allegations against the employer but no material facts explaining how the union violated its duty.

The Board exercised its discretion to terminate the application without prejudice, allowing the applicant 30 days to file a new application that complies with the Board's Rules of Procedure by setting out detailed material facts regarding the union's conduct.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file a response to the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and extended the time for filing the response to April 25, 2001.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party municipality.

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 majority of the Board found that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and directed a representation vote, with ballots of disputed part-time employees to be segregated.

A dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding employer disputed the union'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 majority of the Board found the numerical difference was not significant and ordered a representation vote to be held and counted.

The dissenting member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at the responding party's facility.

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 majority of the Board found that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support to direct a representation vote and have it counted.

A dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant, Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1165, C.L.C., requested to withdraw its application against the Near North District School Board.

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

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support to order a representation vote.

However, the intervenor and responding party argued the application was untimely because the affected employees were already covered by an existing collective agreement between the intervenor and the County of Hastings, which they argued was the same employer.

Due to the dispute over the identity of the employer and the timeliness of the application, the Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending further order.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken to determine whether the employees wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor.

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

The Board found the application was timely and that at least forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

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

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

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

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

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 majority of the Board found that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support to direct a representation vote.

The Board directed a vote and ordered that ballots of individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

The dissenting member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the responding party union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of St. Joseph Health Care, London.

The Board ordered the destruction of the ballots after 30 days and cancelled previously set meeting and hearing dates.

The applicant union filed an application against the responding party employer.

Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement filed by the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave for the application to be withdrawn.

The applicant union, Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada, filed an application against Rona Cashway Building Centres.

The application was subsequently withdrawn with leave of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of Nakiska Co-operative Homes Inc. Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent 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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.