Applicant directed to provide requested particulars or file submissions explaining why it should not.
The responding party requested particulars from the applicant trade union.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the applicant to either provide the requested particulars within 10 days or file submissions explaining why it should not be required to do so.
Union certification granted following a successful representation vote for part-time employees.
The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of part-time employees of the responding party.
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 directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.
Application withdrawn by leave of the Board.
The applicant sought leave to withdraw her application against the responding party union, with the hospital as an intervenor.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Applicant union directed to respond to employer's request for conditions on withdrawal of certification application.
The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification.
The responding employer requested that the Board impose conditions on the withdrawal pursuant to sections 7(8) and 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board directed the applicant to respond to the employer's request within five days.
Union certification application dismissed after representation vote failed to achieve majority support.
The applicant union applied for certification.
Following a representation vote where not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.
The Board directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding any future applications for certification.
Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure majority support in representation vote.
A representation vote was held, but the union failed to obtain more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit.
As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Board dismissed the application and cancelled the previously set meeting and hearing dates.
The applicant sought to withdraw his application against the responding party.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
Style of cause amended to reflect the proper name of the applicant.
The responding party raised a preliminary objection regarding the applicant's name.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board amended the style of cause to reflect the proper name of the applicant: 'International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Construction Council of Ontario'.
Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed because supporting letters were signed by proxy.
The applicant sought a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the responding trade union.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application because the supporting material consisted of letters signed on behalf of employees by a different employee, rather than by the employees themselves.
This proxy signing violated Rule 71 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, meaning the applicant failed to demonstrate that 40 percent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.
Board directed the responding party to serve its covering letter on the other parties.
The responding party trade union filed its response along with a covering letter raising several concerns.
As it was unclear whether the covering letter had been copied to the other parties, the Board directed the union to deliver copies of the letter to the other parties to ensure they were apprised of the concerns.
The applicant, Teamsters Local Union 91, sought to withdraw its application against Glopak Inc. and the Union of Employees of Glopak.
Union decertified following representation vote where majority of employees opposed the union.
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 intervenor employer.
Representation vote directed in application for certification after union demonstrated requisite 40 percent membership support.
The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.
The Board also provided directions regarding segregated ballots for disputed positions and the posting of notices.
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 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 issued a certificate to the applicant union.
Union application withdrawn by leave of the Board.
The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.
The applicant requested to withdraw the application.
Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed due to defective petition evidence lacking proper headings.
The applicant sought to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.
The Board reviewed the materials filed in support of the application and found that the petition evidence was defective, as three of the four pages lacked any heading indicating what the signatories were signing.
Consequently, the Board could not conclude that 40 per cent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit appeared to have expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.
The application was dismissed.
Representation vote ordered in certification application; majority declines to seal ballot box despite section 8.1 notice.
The applicant union filed an application for certification.
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 ordered a representation vote.
The responding party filed a notice under section 8.1 disagreeing with the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the bargaining unit.
The majority of the Board held that any numerical discrepancies were not relevant for the purposes of section 8.1 and declined to seal the ballot box.
A dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(14).
Applicant directed on consent to file representations regarding its trade union status.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural direction on consent, ordering the applicant union to file and deliver representations regarding its status as a trade union by a specified date.
Applicants directed to file submissions responding to union's motion to dismiss duty of fair representation complaint.
The applicants filed an application alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The union moved to dismiss the application on the grounds that it failed to disclose a prima facie case, that the Board should exercise its discretion not to inquire, and that there was undue delay in filing.
The Board directed the applicants to file submissions responding to the union's motion before making a determination.