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 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 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.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural direction regarding a representation vote for two competing applications for certification.

The Board clarified that despite two Notices of Vote being posted, only one vote would be held with a single ballot offering choices for CAW Canada, SEIU Local 183, and 'no union'.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The Board noted the potential application of section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to any subsequent certification application filed within one year.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Board dismissed the application and directed the parties' attention to the one-year bar on subsequent applications under section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Two unions filed competing applications for certification to represent employees at Longfields Manor Nursing Home.

The Board found that both applicants met the 40% membership threshold required to order a representation vote.

Due to disputes raised by the responding party and intervenors regarding the timeliness of the applications, existing collective agreements, and an alleged breach of a settlement agreement, the Board directed that a representation vote be held but ordered the ballot box sealed.

The ballots will not be counted until the Board resolves the outstanding issues at a future hearing.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the union violated section 74 by refusing to file a seniority grievance on her behalf.

The events giving rise to the complaint occurred in 1997 and 1998, resulting in a delay of over three years before the application was filed.

The applicant failed to comply with a Board direction to explain the delay.

The Board exercised its discretion to decline to hear the application, noting that the delay was excessive, unexplained, and inherently prejudicial to the responding parties.

The application was dismissed.

The parties agreed to adjourn three related applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the applications would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicants, the employees of Muller Manufacturing, requested to withdraw their application for termination of bargaining rights against the responding party, BASIQ.

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 established sufficient membership support (not less than forty percent) in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

Although the responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and proposed a different bargaining unit, it agreed that the ballots cast should be counted.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on November 6, 2001.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

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

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

The union advised the Board in writing that it no longer wished to represent the employees in the bargaining unit.

Pursuant to section 63(17) of the Act, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of security guards employed by the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant applied for certification to represent volunteer firefighters employed by the responding party.

The Board directed the applicant to file documents demonstrating its status as a trade union.

Finding that the applicant established sufficient membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote for the proposed bargaining unit of volunteer firefighters, with segregated ballots for disputed managerial positions.

The applicant salon sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer, which found that a former hair stylist was entitled to minimum wage for hours worked, including time spent waiting for customers, rather than just her commission.

The employer argued the claimant spent significant time on personal errands and treatments.

The Board found the employer failed to provide evidence supporting these allegations and affirmed that waiting time is deemed work performed under Regulation 325.

The application was dismissed and the Order to Pay was affirmed.

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

The 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.

The Board directed a representation vote.

The Board also found that the responding party's notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 was of no effect because there was no disagreement over the number of individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

The applicant filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The union responded that it no longer wished to represent the employees in the bargaining unit.

Pursuant to section 63(17) of the Act, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

Two unions filed competing applications for certification regarding the same proposed bargaining unit.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 111(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to treat the second application as if it were made on the same day as the first, as the second was received before a representation vote was directed.

The Board set deadlines for the employer's response and any intervention.

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

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with segregated ballots for disputed positions including confidential support staff, student interns, and casual employees.

The employer was also directed to post the required notices.