Anthony Brown

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification for a bargaining unit of part-time employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found the applicant established sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's requests to dismiss the application based on alleged breaches of a court order, union constitution, and Board rules.

A majority of the Board also declined to delay the vote until the start of the school year, ordering the vote to proceed.

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

The responding party employer 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, but agreed the ballots should be counted.

The Board found the numerical difference between the parties' estimates was not significant and ordered a representation vote.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's objections based on an alleged breach of a court order and union constitution.

The Board also declined the employer and intervenor's request to delay the vote until after the seasonal lay-off ended.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing the vote should be delayed until the school year began.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent part-time employees at the responding party hospital.

The intervenor union objected to the application, alleging breaches of a court order, the union constitution, and the Board's Rules of Procedure, and argued the application was untimely under section 7(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board dismissed the procedural and constitutional objections, finding sufficient membership evidence to order a representation vote.

However, due to the timeliness objection, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed pending further order or agreement of the parties.

A dissenting Board member would have resolved the timeliness issue before ordering a vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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, but agreed that the ballots cast should be counted.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with any ballots cast by individuals in disputed positions to be segregated.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that no vote should take place or the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues are resolved.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The intervenor union objected to the application on several grounds, including alleged breaches of a court order, the union constitution, and the Board's Rules of Procedure, as well as an objection that the application was untimely under section 7(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections but directed that a representation vote be held with the ballot box sealed until the timeliness issue could be resolved.

One Board Member dissented, stating that the vote should not be ordered until the timeliness issues were resolved.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The intervenor union objected, arguing the application breached a court order, the union constitution, and procedural rules, and was untimely under section 7(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board dismissed the preliminary objections regarding the court order, constitution, and procedural rules, and ordered a representation vote.

However, due to the timeliness objection, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed until the issue is resolved.

One Board member dissented, stating the vote should not be ordered until the timeliness issue is resolved.

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 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 at the time of the application.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave for the application to be withdrawn.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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 of the eligible employees.

The applicant credit union applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act following a merger of two credit unions.

The responding unions argued the application was premature because no intermingling of employees had occurred.

The Board found that it was desirable to resolve the conflict between the bargaining rights caused by the recognition clause in one of the collective agreements.

The Board declared that a sale of business had occurred, no intermingling had taken place, and defined the appropriate bargaining units.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her duty of fair representation complaint due to undue delay.

The applicant cited personal difficulties, including low self-esteem and frustration, as reasons for the delay.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant's personal circumstances did not justify the extensive delay of over two years, and that proceeding would cause obvious prejudice to the responding party and intervenor.

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

The matter was scheduled for a hearing, but the applicant failed to appear.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the Director of Employment Standards to disburse the funds held in trust to the responding employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

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

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the funds held in trust to be paid to the responding party employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to order termination pay.

The applicant, a tourism consultant, discovered her employer was receiving more funds for her position than she was paid.

She wrote a letter to the employer's directors alleging financial impropriety and copied it to external parties, including a competitor.

The Board found this conduct constituted wilful misconduct under s. 57(10) of the Employment Standards Act, as it was a deliberate attempt to embarrass the employer and harm its business relationships.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, Service Employees' International Union, Local 210, requested to withdraw its application against the responding party, Beachgrove Golf and County Club Ltd. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

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

The union had previously negotiated a settlement of the applicant's grievances, which the applicant signed, accepting a substantial sum of money.

The applicant claimed he was pressured to sign and was mentally unable to deal with the matter, but provided no medical evidence.

The Board found that the applicant failed to plead sufficient facts to establish a prima facie case of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union.

The application was dismissed without a hearing.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board against the employer and the Ministry of Labour.

The application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at Versa-Care Place Tecumseh.

The intervenor requested a postponement of the certificate's issuance due to ongoing proceedings in other forums.

The Board dismissed the postponement request, noting that Section 10 of the Act does not grant discretion to postpone the issuance of a certificate.

Following a successful representation vote in favour of the applicant, the Board directed that a certificate be issued.

The employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer and the employee subsequently entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing to the disbursement of funds held in trust by the Director.

The Board ordered the funds disbursed in accordance with the settlement and terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The intervenor requested a postponement of the certificate's issuance due to ongoing proceedings in other forums.

The Board dismissed the request, noting that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 does not grant discretion to postpone the issuance of a certificate.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots cast in the representation vote favoured the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue.