Bram Herlich

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

The applicant and the union executed Minutes of Settlement and jointly requested that the Board direct the union and the employer to proceed to arbitration.

The Board directed the employer to file any submissions regarding this request within three weeks.

The union sought to withdraw its application for certification prior to a representation vote.

The responding employer requested that the Board impose conditions on the withdrawal or bar subsequent applications for a period of time under sections 7(8) and 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to impose conditions or a bar, finding the employer's assertions regarding incorrect union estimates and workplace disruption insufficient.

The application was withdrawn by leave of the Board.

One Board Member dissented.

The applicant union filed an application seeking a declaration that several Hydro One entities are related employers under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

No responses were filed by the responding parties.

Having regard to the uncontested materials, the Board granted the application and declared the entities to be one employer for the purposes of the Act.

The applicant filed an application against the responding parties.

On consent of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent school bus drivers employed by 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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application for certification.

The responding party indicated it would consent to certification without a hearing if the applicant's trade union status was established.

The Board reviewed previous files cited by the applicant but could not identify a prior finding of trade union status.

The Board directed the applicant to file materials supporting its claim to be a trade union, after which the responding party could advise if it consented to a determination without an oral hearing.

The union applied for certification and a representation vote was held.

The employer requested a hearing to inquire into allegations of impugned union conduct on the day of the vote, and filed a section 96 application based on the same allegations.

The union asserted the employer's claims were frivolous and vexatious, requesting immediate certification and dismissal of the section 96 application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board directed the employer to file submissions in response to the union's request before determining whether a hearing is required.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that dismissed her application as untimely under section 63(1) of the Labour Relations Act, as less than one year had elapsed since the date of certification.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that absolutely no basis was provided to depart from the prior decision.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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

As a result, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification and directed the parties' attention to the statutory bar on future applications under section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU) requested reconsideration of a Board decision directing a representation vote between OPSEU and CUPE following a sale of a business.

OPSEU argued the decision was inconsistent with another recent Board decision where no vote was ordered despite similar union support levels.

The Board distinguished the cases based on the origins of the minority union's representation rights and dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding parties to file and deliver their submissions in response to the request within 15 days.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% 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 for certification.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent school bus drivers employed by 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 ordered that a certificate will issue to the applicant.

The applicant union filed a matter against the responding party employer.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the matter terminated.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Lakehead University.

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 certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon unit.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of Canadian Blood Services Plasma Collection Centre in Thunder Bay.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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 that a representation vote be taken and noted the responding party's disagreement with the bargaining unit description and estimate of individuals, though the responding party agreed the ballots could be counted without sealing the ballot box.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of North American Lumber Limited in Fort Frances.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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 to be held on May 15, 2001, and determined that the ballot box need not be sealed despite the employer's section 8.1 notice, as the discrepancies in estimates were not numerically relevant.

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.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees, with segregated ballots for disputed loss prevention and security positions.

The applicant union requested production and particulars.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that the request would be dealt with by the panel at the commencement of the hearing.

The applicant trade 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 to be held.

Because the responding party filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Act disputing the applicant's estimate of the number of individuals in the unit, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed.