Brian McLean

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

Following a representation vote in which more than 50 percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the intervenor union requested that the application be dismissed for alleged non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Procedure, or alternatively, that the decision be postponed pending the outcome of a contempt motion and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's requests, finding no particulars to support the non-compliance allegation and no valid reason to delay the final determination.

The Board issued a certificate to the applicant pursuant to section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for unpaid wages, overtime, and commissions.

The Board found that while the employer failed to keep proper records under the Employment Standards Act, the employee's own records of overtime were exaggerated and unreliable.

The Board reduced the overtime claim by half.

The Board also dismissed the employee's claim for commissions, finding she was never placed on the employer's commission plan.

The Order to Pay was varied accordingly.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

A representation vote was held, with the majority of employees voting in favour of the applicant.

The intervenor union requested that the application be dismissed for alleged non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Procedure, or alternatively, that the decision be postponed pending a contempt motion in Superior Court and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's requests, noting a lack of particulars for the rules violation and finding no valid reason to delay the determination.

As more than 50 percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant pursuant to section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant union applied for certification to displace the intervenor union.

A representation vote was held, and a vast majority of employees voted in favour of the applicant.

The intervenor raised several objections, including an alleged extra ballot, non-compliance with procedural rules, and a request to postpone the decision pending a contempt motion and Canadian Labour Congress proceedings.

The Board dismissed all objections, finding that the single ballot could not affect the outcome, no particulars were provided for the procedural objection, and there was no valid reason to delay certification under section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

A representation vote was held, and more than 50 percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

The intervenor union requested that the application be dismissed for alleged non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Procedure, or alternatively, that the decision be postponed pending a contempt motion before the Superior Court and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's requests, finding no particulars for the non-compliance allegation and no valid reason to delay the certification under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant alleged that the union breached Minutes of Settlement by withdrawing her grievance regarding the employer's failure to appoint her as a lead hand.

The union and employer requested the Board to dismiss the allegations without a hearing.

The Board found that the union acted reasonably and not contrary to its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as the collective agreement gave the employer exclusive discretion over lead hand appointments.

The Board declined to inquire further into the applicant's assertions.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

A representation vote was held, and the intervenor union (SEIU) requested the Board postpone its decision pending a contempt motion in Superior Court and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.

The Board declined to postpone the decision, noting that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires certification if more than 50 percent of ballots are cast in favour of the applicant.

The Board also dismissed the intervenor's allegation of employer interference for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

However, the Board referred the matter to a hearing solely on the intervenor's allegation that the Board's notice of vote was not posted in the workplace, given that only 12 of 18 potential voters cast a ballot.

The applicant, a teacher, alleged that his union violated section 87(2)(b) of the Labour Relations Act by removing him as staff representative and imposing a punitive representation scheme in retaliation for a previous duty of fair representation complaint.

At the close of the applicant's case, the union brought a motion for non-suit.

The Board granted the motion and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove he had ever been elected as staff representative, and that the alternative representation scheme was a rational response to his difficult behavior rather than a penalty for his previous complaint.

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 would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision to clarify its previous decision dated May 24, 2000.

The Board confirmed that the Minutes of Settlement filed with the Board were executed by all parties, correcting any potential misinterpretation that they were not.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die on the agreement of the parties.

The application will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed within fifty-three weeks.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at a nursing home.

The intervenor union argued the application should be dismissed or delayed due to pending proceedings before the Canadian Labour Congress and the Superior Court, and for alleged non-compliance with the Board's Rules of Procedure regarding service.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's objections, finding no prejudice.

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

The applicant employer brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding a sale of business and intermingling of employees.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement agreeing to resolve the issue of bargaining rights through a secret ballot representation vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the agreed-upon voting constituency in accordance with the settlement.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant requested to withdraw her application against the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation.

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

The Board previously directed the applicant, Mr. Bailey, to advise whether he intended to proceed with the matter by May 16, 2000, failing which the application would be terminated.

As Mr. Bailey did not respond, the Board terminated the application.

The employer sought review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer for unpaid overtime and public holiday pay.

The employer argued the employee was exempt as a 'taxi cab driver' because he drove vans to transport passengers to the airport.

The Board held that an employee is only employed as a taxi cab driver if they spend the majority of their work hours in a week driving a vehicle with seating for not more than nine persons.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be rescheduled for hearing to apply this test.

The applicant applied to decertify 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 statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.