Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed after union won representation vote.
The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.
A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in opposition to the union.
As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Board dismissed the application.
Union certified as bargaining agent following successful representation vote.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at Walkerton and District Community Support Services.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the union as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.
Board directed applicant to serve union and ordered submissions on whether employer is federally regulated.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the trade union.
The union asserted that it had not been served with the application and that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the employer was federally regulated.
The Board directed the applicant to deliver the application to the union and ordered the parties to file submissions on the jurisdictional issue before requiring a response on the merits.
Board directed parties to file submissions on whether the employer is federally regulated.
The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 alleging a breach of section 74.
The employer asserted that its labour relations are federally regulated, depriving the Board of jurisdiction.
The Board directed the parties to file brief submissions and supporting documentary evidence regarding jurisdiction before proceeding further.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant requested to withdraw the application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
The applicant sought to withdraw the application against the responding party union.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
The applicant filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board against the responding party union.
The application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.
Unfair labour practice allegations partially withdrawn; balance of application adjourned sine die on consent.
The applicant union brought an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The parties resolved some issues and agreed on a process for the remainder.
The Board granted the applicant leave to withdraw allegations regarding conduct directed at its inside organizer.
On consent, the balance of the application was adjourned sine die for one year or until a first collective agreement is concluded.
The applicant, The Ontario English Catholic Teachers’ Association, sought to withdraw its application against the responding parties.
Board grants consent to early termination of collective agreement following joint application and no objections.
The parties filed a joint application for the Board's consent to the early termination of their collective agreement.
Notices of the application were posted at the employer's premises to alert affected employees.
As no objections were filed by the deadline, the Board granted its consent to the early termination of the collective agreement.
Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent 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 for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.
Union decertified after majority of employees voted in opposition during representation vote.
The applicant filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of 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 statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.
Union decertified after majority of employees vote in opposition during representation vote.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the Town of Midland.
Board corrects application date on Confirmation of Filing for certification application.
The applicant filed an application for certification on November 27, 2001.
The Board's Confirmation of Filing incorrectly stated the application date was November 28, 2001.
The Board issued a decision confirming the correct application date and directed the Registrar to deliver an amended form to the parties.
Board directs representation vote in certification application after employer fails to file response.
The applicant trade union applied for certification.
The responding party employer failed to file a response within the stipulated time.
Based on the application and membership evidence, the Board found 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 and ordered the employer to post the required notices.
The applicants filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.
A representation vote was held, and more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees were in opposition to the union.
No statement of desire to make representations was filed.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer and cancelled the previously set hearing dates.
Representation vote ordered with ballot box sealed due to dispute over bargaining unit composition.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent paramedical and technical employees at the responding party hospital.
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 Board ordered a representation vote but directed that the ballot box be sealed, as it was not apparent that forty percent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant.
A dissenting Board member agreed that the ballot box should be sealed but emphasized that section 8.1 requires it unless the parties agree otherwise.
Representation vote directed in application for termination of bargaining rights.
The applicant filed an application 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.
The responding party did not file a response.
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 trade union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.
Application adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.
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 neither party requested to proceed.
Representation vote directed in application to terminate union's bargaining rights; employer interference allegations deferred.
The applicant applied to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights for employees of Cornwall Gravel Company Limited.
Finding the application timely and supported by at least forty percent of the bargaining unit, the Board directed a representation vote.
The union's allegations of employer interference under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 were deferred to a post-vote hearing if necessary.