Bram Herlich

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.

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.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

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.

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).

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

No responses were filed by the responding parties.

The Board directed that, in the absence of any objection received within 5 days, the requested declaration may issue.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicants sought to withdraw their applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the applications.

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.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees brought applications against Canadian North Star Group Limited, with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union intervening.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the applications.

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 at least 40% of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote.

The responding party filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, disputing the bargaining unit's geographic scope and appropriateness.

The majority of the Board found that any numerical discrepancies were not significant for the purposes of section 8.1 and declined to seal the ballot box.

The dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4).

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The union sought to dismiss the application on the basis that it failed to establish a prima facie case and for undue delay.

The Board declined to dismiss the application at this preliminary stage, finding that the pleadings generated the need for an explanation from the union and that the delay was only marginally in excess of one year.

The matter was directed to be listed for consultation.

The parties reached an agreement resolving multiple applications under the Labour Relations Act and the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act.

On consent, the Board declared that the Westario entities constitute a single employer and a successor employer.

The Board ordered a representation vote to determine whether the employees will be represented by CUPE Local 255 or IBEW Local 636, and permitted the withdrawal of the remaining applications.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision not to issue an order for termination pay.

The applicant was discharged after failing to report for a scheduled Saturday shift, despite prior warnings that such failure would result in termination.

The applicant claimed he was unable to work due to pain and provided a doctor's note, but the Board found the note did not explicitly excuse him from work on that day and was not provided to the employer until months later.

The Board concluded that the applicant's failure to report constituted wilful misconduct, disentitling him to termination pay.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against one responding party, Jean Pierre Fortier, and to adjourn the remainder of the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the unopposed request, withdrawing the application against Fortier with leave and adjourning the matter sine die for a period not to exceed 12 months.

In a previous decision, the Board dismissed the applicants' duty of fair representation complaints against the union, subject to a direction that the union provide documentary evidence of an amended Record of Employment and vacation pay for the applicants.

The union filed an amended Record of Employment and copies of internal payroll forms and a recent cheque.

The applicants denied receiving the documents or the payments.

The Board directed the union to either provide proof that the cheques were cashed or arrange for the employer to issue replacement cheques, while confirming that the applications otherwise remained dismissed.

The applicants and the responding party trade union executed Minutes of Settlement.

Having regard to the settlement, the Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision denying her termination and severance pay.

She was discharged for repeatedly failing to wear safety glasses, despite multiple warnings and a suspension.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that, although the safety rules may have been unevenly enforced, the applicant's repeated and persistent refusal to wear safety glasses constituted willful misconduct.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant filed submissions but failed to comply with Rule 33 of the Board's Rules of Procedure regarding delivery to the other parties.

The Board accepted the submissions because they eventually reached the responding parties' counsel.

The applicant subsequently objected to the intervenor employer's submissions, alleging they were filed late, again without copying the other parties.

The Board found the applicant's assertion hyperbolic, noted the lack of precise information due to the applicant's own non-compliance, and extended the time limits to accept the intervenor's submissions.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The responding party employer failed to file a response within the stipulated time, though it requested an extension which the Board denied.

Finding that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent in the proposed bargaining unit, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.