Bram Herlich

Following a representation vote, the Board sought submissions on its legal effect.

The applicant union asserted no reason to alter current collective bargaining relationships until January 1, 2001, but offered no suggestions for after that date.

The responding party employer made no submissions.

The Board terminated the matter.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for December 14, 2000.

The responding party employee objected to the adjournment, citing the length of time the case had been ongoing and personal scheduling conflicts.

The Board noted that the reasons for the applicant's adjournment request were undisputed.

The Board granted the adjournment but directed that the matter be rescheduled and proceed without further delay absent exceptional circumstances.

The grievor voluntarily submitted a letter of intent to retire.

Prior to the effective date of his retirement, he sought to rescind his resignation.

The employer, acting with the delegated authority of the Deputy Minister, declined the request.

The union grieved the refusal.

The Grievance Settlement Board dismissed the grievance, finding that under section 19 of the Public Service Act, the decision to accept a withdrawal of a resignation is a management function not open to arbitral review unless the collective agreement clearly provides for it.

As there was no such provision, the Board lacked jurisdiction to intervene.

The applicant employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing due to a high-risk pregnancy and impending maternity leave.

The Ministry of Labour did not object to the request.

The Board granted the adjournment, conditional upon receiving no objections from the affected employee by a specified date.

The applicants filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding the recognition of their past seniority as provincial government employees following a transfer to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

During a scheduled consultation, the parties reached Minutes of Settlement agreeing to refer the seniority issue to arbitration.

The Board directed the parties to comply with the terms of the settlement and remained seized of the matter.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74.

The applicant, a probationary employee, was discharged and claimed the union should have helped him.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the applicant failed to make out an arguable case.

The application did not allege any arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, nor did it indicate that the union was ever asked to assist the applicant.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision to issue an Order to Pay.

At the commencement of the hearing, the parties advised the Board that they had resolved all matters in dispute.

The Board issued a decision reflecting the agreement, directing the disbursement of the $642.80 held in trust to the respective parties and the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant filed an application before the Board.

The employer subsequently advised the Board that the related arbitration proceeding had concluded with the applicant's grievance being dismissed, and requested that the application be dismissed.

The Board directed the applicant and the union to provide written submissions showing cause as to why the application should proceed.

Following a representation vote where more than 50% of voters cast ballots against the applicant trade union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the parties to provide submissions on the legal effect of the vote.

The Board noted that the parties had previously agreed to address this issue when required.

If no submissions are received within three weeks, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicant trade union applied for a declaration that it had acquired the bargaining rights of its predecessor, SEIU, with respect to employees of Kraft Canada Inc. Although the application was unopposed, the Board declined to grant the declaration on the basis of the materials filed.

The Board found the narrative description of the transfer too skeletal to conclude a transfer had occurred, and noted the applicant had never previously been found to be a trade union within the meaning of the Act.

The Board granted the applicant three weeks to file further submissions and documentary evidence.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Board found the application narrative to be incoherent and was unable to discern the nature of the facts alleged, noting that the only explicit reference to termination dated back to 1981.

The Board directed the applicant to file a revised application containing a summary of relevant facts, specific acts contrary to the Act, and the relief sought within 20 days, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

The responding parties were not required to file a response until a proper application was filed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

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% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote.

Despite a dispute over the geographic scope and inclusion of certain positions, the Board directed that disputed individuals could cast segregated ballots.

The Board declined to seal the ballot box in response to the employer's section 8.1 notice, finding the numerical differences insignificant.

A dissenting Board member would have sealed the ballot box or delayed the vote until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The applicant unions filed applications for declarations of a sale of a business from the Royal Ottawa Health Care Group to the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario.

The responding parties argued the applications were premature as the plan for pediatric mental health services was still being developed and would not be implemented until the summer of 2001.

The Board directed the responding parties to produce all relevant documentation to the applicants pursuant to section 69(13) of the Act.

The parties were directed to advise the Board on the ripeness of the issues once the documents were reviewed, and the matter was ordered to proceed in the normal course in the interim.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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 Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than 50 per cent 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 dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit was imposed.

The applicant 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 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 trade union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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.

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 it appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The responding party filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but agreed that the ballots should be counted.

A dissenting Board member argued that the vote should not take place or the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved at a hearing.

The applicant applied 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 that not less than forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.