Anthony Brown

The applicant 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 Board directed a representation vote but ordered the ballot box sealed because the parties disputed the appropriate bargaining unit description.

The responding party's section 8.1 notice was found to be of no effect as there was no disagreement on the applicant's estimate of individuals in the proposed unit.

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

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 to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the employer.

The applicant, Ontario Union of Stationary Engineers, requested to withdraw its application against the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 772.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file a response.

The Board granted the request, extending the time to October 12, 2001.

The applicant filed an application for certification.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file a response, stating that it did not receive a copy of the application until the following day because it was originally faxed to the wrong number.

The Board granted the extension to allow the responding party the customary two days to file its response.

The Board previously adjourned the application sine die for up to one year, with the condition that any party could request it to proceed.

The intervenor, SEIU Local 204, requested that the application be dismissed or rescheduled, arguing it was untimely.

The applicant requested it remain adjourned to gather more information.

The Board directed the Registrar to reschedule the matter for a hearing as soon as reasonably possible to resolve the issue of timeliness.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

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

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Act regarding the effect on any subsequent application filed within one year.

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

The Board found that the applicant had established trade union status 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 Board also held that the responding party's notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 was of no effect because it failed to provide an estimate of the number of individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent registered nurses at the responding party's long-term care facility.

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 employer's notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act was of no effect because it failed to provide an estimate of the number of individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

The responding union and CAMI Automotive requested an extension of time to file their responses due to ongoing collective negotiations.

The applicant objected.

The Board granted the extension, noting the requested period was short and would not prejudice the applicant.

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.

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

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Although the responding party disputed the bargaining unit description and the number of employees, the Board found the applicant established sufficient membership support.

The Board directed a representation vote for the proposed voting constituency.

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 established sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with segregated ballots for individuals in disputed positions.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging that the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to continue with a grievance regarding his job classification.

The union argued that the application was premature because the dispute was being processed through the job evaluation scheme under the collective agreement.

The Board agreed, finding the application premature, and terminated it without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a fresh application after the collective agreement process had concluded.

The applicant, Teamsters Union Local 880, requested to withdraw its application against Tenneco Automotive.

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

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

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof and adduced no evidence, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application against the responding party.

The parties signed Minutes of Settlement, and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicants requested to withdraw their application.

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

The applicant 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 Director of Employment Standards to pay out the funds held in trust to the claimant and the Government of Ontario.