Brian McLean

The applicant union filed an application for certification to represent a group of unorganized employees.

A representation vote was scheduled.

Another union, CUPE, requested that the ballot box be sealed following the vote until a pending sale of business application (seeking to consolidate bargaining units due to amalgamation) was determined.

The Board declined to seal the ballot box, finding that the sale of business application should not interfere with or delay the certification process, and that representation rights issues could be determined under section 69 of the Act if appropriate.

The Board directed that the ballots be counted following the vote.

The applicant, a limousine driver, was terminated after refusing to help push a stalled utility truck.

He filed a complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, alleging he was fired in reprisal for a work refusal based on a genuine fear of injuring his back.

The Board found that the applicant had communicated his health and safety concern to the company president.

Because the employer failed to call the president to testify regarding the reasons for termination, it did not discharge its reverse onus under section 50(5) of the Act.

The Board allowed the application and ordered reinstatement with compensation.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent telephone sales representatives.

The responding party employer disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support to direct a representation vote.

The Board directed that a vote be taken, with ballots from individuals in disputed positions to be segregated.

A dissenting Board member would have directed the entire ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the responding party's Ready Mix Plant.

The Board found the union had the requisite 40% support and directed a representation vote.

The employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, disagreeing with the union's estimate of employees in the bargaining unit.

The majority of the Board declined to seal the ballot box, finding that even on the employer's estimate, the union had over 40% support.

Board Member Rundle dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) requires the ballot box to be sealed when such notice is given.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The majority of the Board found that the numerical difference between the parties' estimates was not significant and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support to direct a representation vote and have the ballots counted.

A dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's Mississauga location.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

Based on the membership evidence, the Board determined that the applicant had the support of at least 40% of the employees in the unit.

The Board ordered a representation vote.

Although the employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 disagreeing with the union's estimate of the number of employees, the Board declined to seal the ballot box, finding that the union would still have over 40% support even if the employer's estimate was correct.

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

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 at Ipex Inc. The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant sought to adjourn the application sine die.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote, the parties resolved their remaining disputes regarding the bargaining unit description.

The Board found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate.

As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The application was delivered to the responding party on June 26, 2000, but not filed with the Board until July 28, 2000.

As the application was filed more than five days after delivery, it failed to comply with Rule 14 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board terminated the application pursuant to Rule 15, without prejudice to the applicant's right to file a compliant application.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent personal support workers employed by the responding party.

Finding that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support, the Board directed a representation vote.

An intervener union asserted representation rights and requested the ballot box be sealed pending its sale of business application.

The Board directed the parties to file submissions regarding the intervener's request.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board determined that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered an application for certification by OPSEU and a related sale of business application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act.

The parties reached a settlement agreeing that a sale of business and intermingling of employees occurred due to the amalgamation forming Child and Family Services of Timmins and District.

The Board issued a certificate to OPSEU for the South Cochrane unit based on a representation vote, and ordered a further representation vote for the intermingled employees of the new amalgamated entity to choose between the competing unions.

The applicant union filed an application against the responding parties.

Having regard to the settlement reached by the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The intervenor union (SEIU) requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed its objection to a displacement application filed by the applicant union (CAW).

The SEIU argued that the CAW failed to deliver a required form (Form A-3) and inaccurately certified its delivery, and that the Board erred by not holding a hearing on the issue.

The Board denied the request for reconsideration, finding that a hearing was unnecessary because there were no facts in dispute and the parties had filed written submissions.

The Board also held that it had the discretion to relieve against the strict application of its Rules, and properly did so because the SEIU suffered no prejudice from the CAW's procedural failure.

The applicant, a senior mechanical engineer, was terminated three weeks after commencing employment.

He alleged his termination was a reprisal for refusing to work on a solvent-based cleaning system due to chemical allergies, a right protected under section 43 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The employer claimed the termination was solely due to the applicant's poor attitude and interpersonal conflicts with coworkers.

The Board found that while the applicant was difficult to work with, the termination was at least partially motivated by his legitimate work refusal.

The Board concluded the employer breached section 50(1) of the Act and awarded the applicant three months' pay as damages.

The applicant, a worker member of the joint health and safety committee, appealed an inspector's decision not to issue an order against the employer.

The applicant alleged the employer violated the Occupational Health and Safety Act by testing a new bulk emulsive explosive without consulting the committee or allowing a designated member to be present.

The Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the testing was conducted solely to determine the product's efficiency, not for health and safety purposes, and therefore the statutory right to be present did not apply.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The intervenor union argued the application should be dismissed because it was not served with a blank Form A-3, allegedly violating the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The Board found that while the applicant may have been sloppy, the intervenor suffered no prejudice and there was no evidence of deliberate non-compliance.

Having regard to the representation vote where more than fifty per cent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

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

The Board found that the application disclosed a potential prima facie breach of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the reimbursement of the applicant's sick bank and the assignment of a math class instead of an introductory business course, and listed these issues for consultation.

The Board dismissed the remaining aspects of the application, finding no requirement in the minutes of settlement for adult course assignments, and concluding that the union did not violate the Act by refusing to grieve comments made by the principal and a fellow teacher.