Anthony Brown

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 granted the application and ordered a certificate to issue.

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

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support and directed a representation vote.

The intervenor requested that the vote not be held or that the ballot box be sealed due to alleged unfair labour practices and ongoing proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice and the Canadian Labour Congress.

Relying on a previous decision involving similar objections by the intervenor, the Board declined to seal the ballot box and directed that the vote proceed.

The Scarborough Hospital applied under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act following its amalgamation.

The Hospital and the Ontario Nurses' Association, Local 111 executed Minutes of Settlement agreeing to a bargaining unit description and the holding of a representation vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order directing a representation vote for the agreed-upon bargaining unit of registered and graduate nurses.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent part-time bus drivers of the responding party.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and that it had established sufficient membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent registered and graduate nurses employed by the responding party.

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 Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support (not less than 40%) to obtain a representation vote.

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

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The responding employer and an intervenor union submitted that the application was untimely because they had already entered into a voluntary recognition agreement and ratified a collective agreement.

The Board noted that the applicant had not yet replied to these submissions and directed the applicant to file a reply regarding the timeliness issue.

The applicant employer sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring him to pay four weeks' termination pay to a former employee.

The employee failed to return from vacation, claiming medical reasons through her mother, but never provided a medical certificate or an expected return date despite the employer's requests.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the employee repudiated her contract of employment by refusing to show up for work, which constituted wilful neglect of duty under s. 57(10)(c) of the Employment Standards Act.

The order to pay termination pay was rescinded.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against the responding parties.

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

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay termination and severance pay to three former employees, arguing they were guilty of wilful misconduct or neglect of duty.

The employer had hired a private investigator who observed the employees taking extended breaks, making personal phone calls, and watching television during working hours.

The Board found that while the employees engaged in misconduct and neglect of duty, their behaviour was not 'wilful' within the meaning of the Employment Standards Act.

The employees did not have a genuine understanding of the possible disciplinary consequences of their behaviour, largely due to the employer's failure to communicate rules or warnings effectively and the supervisor's inaction.

The application for review was dismissed, and the funds held in trust were ordered to be paid to the employees.

The applicant filed duty of fair representation complaints against the union.

Following a prior Board decision directing the union to provide details about the status of the applicant's grievances, the union provided correspondence indicating it had kept the applicant informed and explained why the grievances were withdrawn.

The applicant subsequently claimed he had not received any response.

The Board directed the applicant to file a reply addressing the union's correspondence, detailing his allegations of bad faith, and explaining why he failed to mention prior union letters at the previous hearing, failing which the applications would be dismissed.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay unpaid wages against his former company, which had declared bankruptcy.

The central issue was whether the applicant was an employee or an independent contractor.

The Board found that despite working with limited supervision as an arbitrator and appraiser, the applicant was an employee because he was paid a base salary, did not pay his own expenses, worked exclusively for the company, and had no written independent contractor agreement.

The Board ordered the bankrupt company to pay the applicant $2,869.72 in unpaid wages.

The applicants sought leave to withdraw their application following the execution of minutes of settlement by the parties.

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

The applicant sought to withdraw the application following the execution of Minutes of Settlement between the parties.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A consultation was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear.

The responding party requested that the matter be dismissed.

The Board dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.

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 despite receiving notice.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and ordered the funds held in trust to be paid out to the responding employee and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant failed to provide the information required by a previous Board decision.

The application was terminated for non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Procedure and the previous decision.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification before the scheduled representation vote.

The responding party employer requested a one-year bar on further applications, arguing the union was abusing the Board's process by making repeated applications without material changes in circumstances.

The Board directed the applicant to file a response to the employer's request for a bar before making a determination.

The applicant union brought an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board against the responding party employer.

The application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicants, Sean O'Meara and Sylvain Paquette, sought to withdraw their applications against the Employees' Association of Ottawa Carleton.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the applications were withdrawn.