Anthony Brown

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a violation of section 74 by the union.

The union raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the Board lacks jurisdiction because the employer, Purolator Courier, is a federal undertaking.

The Board directed the applicant to file a reply to the jurisdictional challenge by a specified date, failing which the application would be terminated.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The first representation vote resulted in a tie, with one segregated ballot that the union conceded belonged to an individual who should be included in the bargaining unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined that a second representation vote would be required and cancelled the previously scheduled hearing dates as there was no longer a dispute to be heard.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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 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 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 proposed a different, more inclusive unit.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with certain ballots segregated pending resolution of the bargaining unit dispute.

The applicant's request for a mail-in ballot was denied.

A dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding party employer 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 the applicant established sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board directed that the vote be taken and that ballots cast at the two different locations be segregated and counted separately.

The Board also directed that ballots of individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

Board Member Rundle dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed because the employer disagreed with the union's estimate.

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

The Board found that the union filed sufficient membership evidence to warrant a representation vote.

A vote was directed for the proposed bargaining unit, with a direction to segregate ballots for disputed positions (sales staff, students, and quality control staff).

Due to a dispute over the bargaining unit description and the number of employees, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed pending further agreement or order.

The applicant union filed a second application for certification immediately after being granted leave to withdraw its first application.

The responding party employer argued that the withdrawal decision was a nullity because it was made without seeking submissions, and requested that the Board impose a bar on the second application and award costs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the employer's arguments, finding no breach of natural justice in the withdrawal process.

The Board declined to impose a bar, finding no abuse of process, and confirmed it lacked jurisdiction to award costs.

The second application was permitted to proceed.

The applicant, a registered nurse, alleged that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following a hospital reconfiguration, the applicant was laid off and ultimately chose a voluntary exit package.

She later learned of an arbitration award that might have benefited her had she remained on lay-off.

She argued the union should have informed her of the ongoing arbitration before she made her decision.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union was not required to advise her based on speculative arbitration outcomes, and its failure to do so was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant applied to terminate bargaining rights.

The application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union and its officials authorized and encouraged an unlawful strike.

The Board outlined the statutory provisions prohibiting unlawful strikes during the term of a collective agreement and the potential remedies available to an employer.

Recognizing the need for expedition in unlawful strike situations, the Board scheduled an expedited hearing for the matter.

The applicant filed an application 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 intervenor employer.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant and responding party agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year pending the finalization of a settlement.

The Board consented to the adjournment.

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application under sections 21, 22, or 23 of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, after the parties resolved the outstanding issues.

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

The applicants applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the employees in the 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 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 trade union applied for certification.

The responding party employer disagreed with the proposed bargaining unit description, arguing it should encompass all five of its locations in Middlesex County rather than just the two in London.

The employer also filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which the Board found invalid as it disputed the size of the employer's proposed unit rather than the union's.

The Board directed a representation vote, ordering that ballots from the two London locations be segregated and counted separately from the other three locations.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging his employment was terminated in reprisal for raising health and safety concerns about a sandblaster, contrary to section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The responding party employer sought to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case under Rule 46.

The Board found that, based on the applicant's own pleadings, he was terminated for insubordination following a dispute with his supervisor, and there was no refusal by the employer to discuss the safety concerns.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing as it failed to establish a link between the dismissal and the exercise of rights under the Act.