Application dismissed due to applicant's failure to appear at the scheduled consultation.
The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled consultation.
After standing the matter down for half an hour, the applicant still did not appear.
On the motion of the responding party and intervenor, the Board dismissed the application.
Board directed parties to provide written submissions on a newly identified relevant decision.
The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.
The principal issue was whether the applicant and Dolfin Developments Ltd. were related employers under section 12 of the Employment Standards Act.
Following the hearing, the Vice-Chair identified a relevant decision not raised by the parties and directed the Registrar to forward it to them, allowing three weeks for written submissions.
Application dismissed as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to attend the hearing.
The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing for their application.
After standing the matter down, the applicant still did not appear.
On motion by counsel for the Ministry of Labour, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application as abandoned.
Time limit for responding party to file a response extended.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural decision extending the time limit for the responding party to file a response to October 30, 2000.
Representation vote directed in application for certification.
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 among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.
Declaration granted confirming applicant union acquired predecessor's rights via merger or transfer of jurisdiction.
The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.
The application was unopposed.
The Board granted the application and issued the requested declaration.
Time limit for responding party to file its response extended.
The applicant brought a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The Board issued a brief decision extending the time limit for the responding party, CUPE Local 3051, to file its response to October 27, 2000.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, 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 and established the voting constituency, with directions for segregating ballots of disputed positions.
Expedited hearing scheduled to address employer's allegation of an unlawful strike via overtime boycott.
The applicant employer filed an application alleging that the responding union and several employees were engaging in an unlawful strike by conducting an overtime boycott.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the statutory framework prohibiting strikes during the term of a collective agreement and the broad definition of a strike, which can include concerted refusals to work overtime.
Recognizing the need for expedition in unlawful strike applications, the Board scheduled an expedited hearing to determine the merits of the employer's allegations.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant union sought to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
Representation vote directed in certification application with ballot box sealed due to bargaining unit dispute.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in its proposed bargaining unit.
Due to a dispute over the bargaining unit description, the Board directed a representation vote using the employer's proposed voting constituency, with disputed positions casting segregated ballots.
As the employer filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed pending further order.
The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent 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.
Representation vote directed in union certification application with ballot box sealed pending dispute resolution.
The applicant union filed an application for certification.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant met the definition of a trade union and that at least forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.
The Board directed a representation vote to be held, ordering the ballot box sealed pending the resolution of significant issues in dispute between the parties.
Board directs applicant to respond to union's assertion of federal jurisdiction.
The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation.
The responding union asserted that the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the union's jurisdictional objection.
The applicant sought to withdraw their application against the employer and the Ministry of Labour.
Board directs representation vote for part-time employees and orders ballot box sealed due to disputes.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent part-time 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.
Due to a dispute over the inclusion of certain positions and a section 8.1 notice from the employer regarding the number of employees in the unit, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed pending further order or agreement.
Termination application dismissed for failing to meet 40 percent threshold; particulars ordered for related ULP complaint.
The applicants filed two related applications: one to terminate the union's bargaining rights and another alleging unfair labour practices by the employer.
The applicants acknowledged they lacked the required 40 percent support for termination but claimed the employer's conduct caused the loss of 90 signatures.
The Board dismissed the termination application, finding it lacked statutory authority to direct a vote without meeting the 40 percent threshold.
The Board directed the applicants to provide further particulars regarding the unfair labour practice complaint before ruling on the union's request to dismiss it without a hearing.
Representation vote directed in application for termination of bargaining rights.
The applicant 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 percent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.
Board directs representation vote in union certification application after finding sufficient membership evidence.
The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party at two worksites.
The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.
The responding party filed a notice under section 8.1 but failed to file a complete response, so the Board could not determine if there was a numerically relevant dispute regarding the number of employees.
The ballots will be counted in a manner permitting separate counts for the proposed units.