Anthony Brown

The applicant union and responding hospitals 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 will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

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

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

The applicants filed an application alleging that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to file a grievance regarding their seniority calculation.

The applicants argued that their seniority from two merged locals should have been stacked.

The union declined to file a grievance because it determined that stacking seniority would conflict with the merger agreement.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no evidence that the union acted in an arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith manner, as it had considered the issue and reasonably relied on the merger agreement.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of a business occurred under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act when the responding party, Northway Bus Lines, purchased school buses from Hanmer Bus Lines after Hanmer went out of business.

Northway also hired some former Hanmer drivers and was awarded bus routes by the school board that Hanmer previously serviced.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that Northway merely purchased physical assets and did not acquire Hanmer's business or any part of it.

The school board routes were awarded through a normal competitive process and did not constitute a transfer of a business.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the responding party union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant complained about events from 1997 and 1998, including the combination of her job with another position, lack of forklift training, and her subsequent retirement.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for undue delay and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the application on the ground of undue delay, finding the 19-month delay to be prejudicial and inadequately explained.

The Board also noted that, even if not dismissed for delay, the application would be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case, as the applicant never requested the union to file a grievance or take specific action.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against the responding party union.

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

The applicant and responding party 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 will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The responding parties requested that the Ontario Labour Relations Board defer the application to the grievance arbitration process or dismiss it due to an alleged six-year delay.

The Board declined to defer, noting that the issues and remedies in the application are distinct from those in arbitration.

The Board also dismissed the preliminary objection regarding undue delay.

Additionally, the Board directed the responding parties to produce requested documents or provide reasons for any objections within two weeks.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for November 15, 2000, because he was subpoenaed to testify at a second-degree murder trial starting November 14, 2000.

The Board granted the adjournment sine die due to the exceptional circumstances and uncertainty regarding the length of the applicant's involvement in the trial.

The applicant must notify the Registrar within one year to reschedule, or the application will be deemed terminated.

The applicants filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board directed the applicants to make submissions on whether the application was timely, as the collective agreement was set to expire on October 31, 2002.

The applicants failed to provide submissions.

The Board dismissed the application as untimely on its face.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision amending its previous decision dated November 2, 2000.

The amendment deleted 'Office & Professional Employees’ International Union, Local 253' from the style of cause, noting that there was no intervenor in the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted an extension of time for filing a response or intervention to November 20, 2000.

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.

However, the parties agreed upon a pre-vote list of eligible employees, and the Board found no numerically significant difference.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

Upon examining the information and membership evidence filed, the Board found that less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

The application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party at the Hamilton General Hospital.

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

The Board found sufficient membership support to order a representation vote and directed that the vote be held, with ballots of disputed office staff to be segregated.

The applicants filed a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board issued a brief decision extending the time for the responding party to file a response to November 6, 2000.

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

The responding party disputed the applicant's trade union status, the estimated number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit, and the appropriateness of the unit, and argued that a planned build-up in its workforce warranted delaying the representation vote.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union, determined there was sufficient membership support to order a vote, and directed that a representation vote be held.

The Board ordered the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the build-up argument and disputes over the inclusion of certain personnel.

The responding party requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for November 15, 2000, citing an out-of-town commitment.

The applicant did not consent to the adjournment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, noting its practice of not granting adjournments without consent absent very exceptional circumstances, which were not present in this case.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations 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 of the union at the time the application was made.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of a day care centre.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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 of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.