Anthony Brown

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

The applicants filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The responding union argued the application was untimely under section 67 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because a conciliation officer had been appointed prior to the expiry of the collective agreement.

The Board directed the applicants to file submissions on the timeliness issue before determining whether to order a representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of Revenue Operations employees at the Toronto Transit Commission.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with segregated ballots for several disputed positions including crew chief, audit and control clerk, and vault custodian.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice application alleging the responding party employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The employer asserted that its commercial contract with a hotel was an important factor in its ability to meet the union's bargaining demands.

The union sought production of this contract.

The Board ordered the employer to produce the contract and scheduled a hearing for the remaining issues.

The applicant trade 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.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification to represent employees of Operation Springboard.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and proposed a different unit, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found the applicant's proposed unit could be appropriate but could not be certain that at least 40 per cent of the individuals in the unit were union members.

Consequently, the Board ordered a representation vote with directions to seal the ballot box and segregate ballots of disputed positions and full-time versus part-time employees.

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

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.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support.

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 employees at a Quality Inn in Mississauga.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that at least 40% of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party at the Woodbine Centre Mall.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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 of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the Manitoulin-Sudbury District Social Services Administration Board.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of at least forty percent of the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held on March 8, 2000, and established the voting constituency, with provisions for segregating ballots of disputed positions.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by settling his grievance for an amount he considered insufficient.

The union requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case, noting its discretion to settle grievances and a previous similar grievance that was lost at arbitration.

The Board declined to dismiss the application on a prima facie basis and directed that the matter be scheduled for a consultation.

The employer and union brought a joint application under section 58(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for the early termination of their collective agreement.

The parties sought to change the expiry date from April 1, 2008, to August 1, 2001.

Notice was posted at the workplace and no employees objected.

The Board consented to the request and ordered the decision to be posted at the workplace.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, regarding the handling of his discharge grievance.

The union and the intervenor employer noted that the grievance was scheduled for arbitration.

The Board dismissed the application as insufficiently pleaded and premature, as the grievance arbitration process was still ongoing, without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a new application after the grievance is disposed of.

The applicant, a janitor, filed a grievance after not receiving a wage increase given to skilled trades.

The union processed the grievance to Step Three but subsequently withdrew it after canvassing members, who did not support proceeding.

The applicant alleged the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a formal vote and not providing written notice of the withdrawal.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that while the union's procedure had minor flaws, its decision was based on a consideration of the members' views and the grievance's merits, and was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to process his grievances.

The union argued the application should be dismissed without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case, as one grievance was out of time and the other related to a position outside the bargaining unit.

The Board directed the applicant to file a reply to the union's submissions before deciding whether to dismiss the application.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging unjust termination by her employer.

The union requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board noted the application lacked material facts specifying how the union acted arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The Board directed the applicant to file a detailed statement of material facts by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the responding party violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by contracting out custodial work and snow removal, and discontinuing the employee assistance program.

The union sought an order for the production of several documents.

The Board directed the responding party to produce the documents it does not object to producing, and to file a statement of objections for any documents it refuses to produce.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the responding party employer violated sections 17, 70, and 73 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by bargaining directly with employees.

The parties agreed to a consent order.

The Board declared that the employer violated the Act, ordered the employer to cease bargaining with individual employees, invalidated the written contracts of employment entered into with bargaining unit employees, and ordered the employer to negotiate in good faith with the union.

The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision that established the voting constituency for a representation vote in an application for certification.

The employer argued that the geographic area chosen by the union for the non-ICI sectors was inappropriate and would cause prejudice.

The Board dismissed the request, reaffirming its established jurisprudence that a union may select the geographic area in which it seeks bargaining rights for non-ICI sectors, and is not required to include all areas where the employer has employees.

On its own motion, the Board amended the bargaining unit description to conform to its standard practice for 'white areas' not falling within a defined Board Area.

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

Following a representation vote in which more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the union and issued a certificate.