Caroline Rowan

The applicant filed applications under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) against his union and employer, alleging he was dismissed for raising health and safety concerns.

The union and employer brought preliminary motions to dismiss the OHSA application.

The Board granted the union's motion, dismissing the OHSA application against it because the union was not the employer, noting the allegations against the union would proceed under the Labour Relations Act application.

The Board dismissed the employer's motion, finding the applicant had pled a prima facie case of reprisal under the OHSA.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of security guards at the Royal Alexandria Theatre.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and determined the appropriate bargaining unit based on the parties' agreement.

Finding that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were union members, the Board directed that a representation vote be held.

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 and that it appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with directions for segregating ballots of individuals in disputed positions, such as the chef.

The Board also found that the responding party's purported notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 was improper because it did not disagree with the number of employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant sought to reopen his unfair labour practice application, which he had previously withdrawn pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement, alleging that the union failed to live up to its promises.

The Board declined to reopen the application, noting that the proper recourse for a breach of the agreement is to make a fresh application to enforce the settlement under section 96(7) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant to be a trade union and determined that it had established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees to determine whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the incumbent union.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no outstanding issues or complaints from the intervenor or applicant, the Board issued a final certificate to the applicant without a hearing.

The applicant union filed an application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a sale of a business.

The intervenor union requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case, or alternatively, that the applicant provide all material facts and that documents be produced.

The Board dismissed the motion to dismiss, noting that one responding party employer did not object to the relief requested and the other took no position.

The Board directed the applicant to provide a statement of material facts not already pleaded.

The Board deferred the request for production of documents until after the parties met with the Labour Relations Officer.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of 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 found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate.

The Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of 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 found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate.

The Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant union.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party trade union's bargaining rights.

The Board found that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The responding party requested that the application be dismissed without a vote under section 63(16).

The majority of the Board declined to dismiss the application without a vote or to seal the ballot box, directing that a representation vote be taken and that the responding party's issues be dealt with at a post-vote hearing.

One Board member dissented, stating they would have sealed the ballot box until the section 63(16) charges were addressed.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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 found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and established the voting constituency.

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

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found that not more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in opposition to the responding party employer.

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

The applicant union and responding employer resolved all outstanding issues regarding a certification application, including the bargaining unit description.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a certificate to the applicant union for the agreed-upon bargaining unit of food services employees at Niagara College.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at St. Joseph's Health Care, London.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and the union's acceptance of the responding party's proposed bargaining unit, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found the unit appropriate.

The Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant and cancelled previously set meeting and hearing dates.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent 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 requested that its certification application be held in abeyance pending the Board's decision regarding its trade union status in a separate file.

The Board granted the request and extended the deadline for the applicant's submissions to five days after the decision in the other file is released.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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 majority of the Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support and directed a representation vote, with disputed ballots to be segregated.

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

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent 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 and directed the destruction of the ballots after 30 days.

The applicant applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the sole outstanding issue was the applicant's trade union status.

Based on the material filed, including its constitution, the Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent landscape, maintenance, and excavation employees of 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 certified the union as the exclusive bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.