Anthony Brown

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the school board violated the Labour Relations Act by refusing to permit him to use its facilities to teach skipping classes.

The school board raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the individually named trustees, employees, and legal counsel were improperly named as responding parties.

The Board agreed, finding that the decision to exclude the applicant was made by the school board in its corporate capacity, and ordered the individuals deleted from the style of cause.

The Board also directed the parties to file written submissions on whether it should exercise its discretion to decline to hear the application on the basis that another forum was more appropriate.

The responding party raised a preliminary objection asserting that the Board lacked jurisdiction to hear the applications under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board declined to determine the jurisdictional issue solely on the basis of the parties' written submissions, directing instead that the responding party may raise the question as a preliminary issue before the panel hearing the applications.

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

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 certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

Following a representation vote, not more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in opposition to the union.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Board dismissed the application and cancelled the previously set hearing dates.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant and cancelled previously set hearing dates.

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 applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of 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 to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the applicant union and directed that a certificate issue.

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 filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board found that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

Consequently, the Board directed that a representation vote be held.

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

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 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 responding party agreed with the applicant's estimate of the number of employees, rendering its section 8.1 notice of no effect.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding union.

The Board extended the time for the responding party and affected parties to file a response or intervention to September 19, 2000, noting no serious prejudice to the applicant.

The Board also deleted several employers from the style of cause as affected parties, as the applicant indicated it no longer sought any remedy against them.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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

The responding party disputed the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but agreed the ballots should be counted.

The Board ordered a representation vote, directing that ballots cast by employees at a disputed location be segregated and sealed pending further determination.

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 Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of Selinger Wood Ltd.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging various violations by the responding union.

The Board noted that the applicant had failed to serve the application on the responding parties, contrary to the Board's Rules of Procedure.

Consequently, the Board declined to process the application and directed the Registrar to close the file, noting the applicant could file a properly served and completed application in the future.

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

The Board noted that the applicant had not yet established its status as a trade union under section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and directed it to file the necessary documentation.

However, based on the membership evidence provided, the Board found that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

Consequently, the Board ordered a representation vote to be held.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party employer disputed the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but agreed that the ballots cast should be counted.

The majority of the Board ordered a representation vote, directing that ballots cast by individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

A dissenting Board member argued that the vote should not take place or the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The applicant filed an application against the union, with the employer intervening.

The Board directed that the application be scheduled for a consultation, without prejudice to any party's right to raise issues of delay and lack of a prima facie case at that time.

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

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 to be held, noting that the incumbent union did not wish to intervene or appear on the ballot.

The Board also provided directions for segregating ballots of disputed office staff positions.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The employer informed the Board that it is federally-regulated but provided no documentation.

The applicant failed to respond to a Board direction to explain why the Board has jurisdiction.

The Board deferred dismissing the application and directed the employer and the union to provide information regarding whether their collective bargaining relationship falls under federal jurisdiction.