Anthony Brown

The applicant and responding party agreed to adjourn the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the 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with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

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

The applicant union and responding employer reached a settlement.

Having regard to the settlement, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the applications withdrawn.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on November 20, 2001, and directed that any ballots cast by individuals in disputed managerial positions be segregated.

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, directing that ballots of part-time employees and other disputed positions be segregated.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed.

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.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit expressed a wish not to be represented by the union and directed a representation vote.

Due to a dispute between the parties regarding the timeliness of the application and the effective dates of the collective agreement, the Board ordered that the ballot box be sealed and the ballots not be counted until further order or agreement.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

Prior to the hearing, the claimant withdrew her claim and the applicant confirmed the matter was resolved, requesting the return of monies held in trust.

The Board ordered that the application will be deemed terminated unless the Ministry of Labour objects within ten days.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a scheduled consultation because her counsel was unavailable.

The responding party and intervenor objected, citing previous delays.

The Board denied the request, noting that adjournments are rarely granted without consent and no exceptional circumstances were presented.

The applicant filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found the application to be timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application due to several procedural defects, including the use of photocopied signatures, failure to deliver the application to the responding party before filing, and failure to propose a date for a Board-ordered vote.

The application was terminated without prejudice to the filing of a new, timely application.

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's bargaining rights for a unit of employees at the Town of Midland.

Finding the application timely and that at least forty percent of the employees expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of 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 among the eligible employees.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by settling four of his grievances without his consent.

The union and the employer had agreed to a settlement that fully compensated the applicant for lost wages from two suspensions, while withdrawing two other grievances regarding overtime and a transfer.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding no prima facie case.

The Board reiterated that a union has carriage of grievances and is not required to take a matter to arbitration simply because the employee wishes it, provided the union's decision is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The Board previously directed the parties to advise whether they wished a reference under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act to be listed for a hearing, as the matter had been adjourned for over a year.

Having received no response, the Board indicated it would terminate the reference and close the file, subject to any objection from the Minister of Labour within ten days.

The applicant alleged that the responding union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to advance a grievance regarding her suspension and by refusing to file a grievance regarding her permanent layoff.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the suspension grievance, finding the union acted reasonably given the applicant had privately resolved the suspension with the employer.

However, the Board found the union acted arbitrarily in refusing to file the layoff grievance.

The union failed to adequately investigate the applicant's claims regarding her seniority and probationary status, and did not meet with her to discuss the relevant documentation.

The Board directed the union to thoroughly and fairly investigate the proposed layoff grievance.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

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

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 statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.