Anthony Brown

The applicant group of employees sought to withdraw their application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party at a specific site.

The Board found the applicant established sufficient membership support and ordered a representation vote.

Due to a dispute over the bargaining unit composition and submissions regarding an imminent build-up of employees from a planned consolidation, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed pending further order or agreement of the parties.

The applicant group of employees sought to withdraw their application against the Teamsters Local Union 91.

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

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding union returned the complaint with a brief note asserting that the employer is a federal work or undertaking governed by the Canada Labour Code, depriving the Board of jurisdiction.

The Board directed the responding party to file a proper response, including a statement of material facts supporting its jurisdictional objection.

The applicant group of employees sought to withdraw their application against the Teamsters Local Union 91.

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

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least 40% of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and established the voting constituency, with disputed positions to cast segregated ballots.

The applicant union filed an application under sections 21, 22, and/or 23 of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the Registrar to schedule the application to be heard together with a related application for certification.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay for alleged unpaid overtime.

The applicant claimed he worked approximately 70 hours of overtime but provided no reliable records or evidence of employer authorization.

The Board found that even if the applicant's records were accepted, his hours did not exceed the 44-hour weekly threshold required for overtime pay under section 24 of the Employment Standards Act.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, requested to withdraw its application against Homes First Society.

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

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 certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit of employees at Supportive Housing in Peel.

The applicant filed an application against the responding party union.

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant requested that the Board order the responding party to provide copies of its constitution, by-laws, and a list of approved law firms.

The applicant later informed the Board that the information had not been received and sought an order directing production.

The Board directed the Registrar to send the applicant's letter to the responding party and gave the responding party until January 19, 2000, to file any objections to the request.

The applicant filed a medical note indicating she was ill on the date of the previously scheduled consultation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the Registrar to schedule a new date for the consultation in consultation with the parties.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

The applicants, Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75 and Hotel Restaurant and Hospitality Service Employees Union, Local 442, sought to withdraw their application against the responding parties.

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

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and supported by at least 40 per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held.

Due to a dispute over whether one individual was a member of the bargaining unit, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed and any ballot cast by that individual be segregated.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application in accordance with subsection 69.1(5) of the Act.

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 proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with disputed positions casting segregated ballots.

The applicant union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

The ballots were sealed because the responding employer asserted that the 'build-up principle' applied, which would delay the vote.

Following a hearing on the issue, the Board found that the build-up principle did not apply to the facts of the application.

The Board directed the Manager of Field Services to arrange for the counting of the ballots, with reasons to follow.

The applicant employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision affirming an Employment Standards Officer's order that the responding party employee was entitled to notice of termination.

The applicant alleged forgery, perjury, and non-disclosure by the employee.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was merely attempting to reargue its case and had not provided any new information that was unavailable at the time of the original hearing.