Anthony Brown

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with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of St. Joseph Health Care, London.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 trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held to allow employees to choose between the applicant and the intervenor.

The applicants, Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 and Vipool Sukhram, sought to withdraw their application against the Toronto Transit Commission.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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The application was subsequently withdrawn with leave of the Ontario Labour Relations Board.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 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Minutes of Settlement filed by the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave for the application to be withdrawn.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 applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote in which more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Board found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, sought to withdraw its application against the City of Toronto and Metropolitan Housing Corporation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The responding party disputed the proposed bargaining unit and the estimated number of employees, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board ordered a vote, with ballots of individuals in disputed positions to be segregated.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision to correct a typographical error in a previous decision that ordered a representation vote.

The original decision was inadvertently dated April 11, 2001, and the Board amended the date to read April 9, 2001.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued an amendment to its March 30, 2001 decision.

The amendment substituted the date April 17, 2001 for April 13, 2001 to account for Board holidays, and corrected the file number in the French translation of the decision.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent certain employees of Ryerson Polytechnic University.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on April 11, 2001.

Due to a dispute over the inclusion of instructors and faculty members, and a section 8.1 notice from the responding party regarding the bargaining unit description and employee estimate, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed pending further order or agreement.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The responding party 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 between the parties was not significant and directed a representation vote, with ballots for disputed positions to be segregated.

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

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote.

Because the responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and proposed a different bargaining unit, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Act, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed until further order or agreement.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, that it represented employees of the responding party, Borden Cold Storage Limited, following the sale of a warehouse facility by J. M. Schneider Inc. The union argued that the transaction constituted a sale of part of a business, thereby transferring bargaining rights.

The Board found that the transaction was merely a sale of idle assets, specifically an empty and derelict warehouse, rather than the transfer of a functional economic vehicle or operational entity.

The purchaser created a new third-party commercial enterprise from the ground up.

Consequently, the Board concluded there was no sale of a business within the meaning of the Act and dismissed the application.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

Although the responding party disputed the bargaining unit description and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, it agreed that the ballots should be counted.

The majority of the Board directed a representation vote.

The dissenting member argued that no vote should take place until the section 8.1 issues were resolved at a hearing, or alternatively, that the ballot box should be sealed.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees in the Facilities Section of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture of the Town of Newmarket.

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

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the responding party.

A representation vote was held, but not more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

No statements of desire to make representations were filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74.

The union sought dismissal of the application on the basis that it failed to disclose a prima facie case, arguing that the applicant had not attempted to file a grievance and that her dissatisfaction with the Local President was an internal union matter.

The Board directed the applicant to file a reply to the submissions of the union and the intervenor employer before determining whether to schedule a consultation or dismiss the application.

The applicant sought a review of an order to pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The issue was whether the employee was terminated or quit his employment after a workplace fight involving his brother.

The Board found that the employee had abandoned his job by leaving work after the fight and not returning for several days.

The Board concluded that the employee quit his employment and rescinded the order to pay.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Beaulieu of Canada Inc. Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.