Caroline Rowan

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of employees at McCormick Home.

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 filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union applied 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 applicant established sufficient membership support and directed a representation vote, declining to seal the ballot box.

A 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 cast 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 responding party notified the Board that the applicant failed to include blank copies of the Response to Application Regarding Employee Status and the Notice to Responding Party with the application.

The Board directed the applicant to deliver the missing forms forthwith and extended the deadline for the responding party to file a response to ten days after the date of delivery.

In a proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the United Steelworkers of America requested an order regarding the list of eligible voters.

The Board directed the applicant employer to provide the bargaining agents with the addresses and home telephone numbers of any additional individuals that the bargaining agents advise should be added to the voter list, including thirty individuals identified by OPSEU.

The Board declined to make any additional orders at this stage.

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 filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The intervenor, SKD Company, requested that two applications involving the same parties and identical statements of facts be heard together.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and directed that the applications be consolidated and heard together.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% 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 responding party requested an extension of time to file a response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the extension to April 27, 2001, noting that the hearing was scheduled to commence on May 1, 2001.

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 found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the Norfolk Hospital Association.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a final certificate.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed the issuance of a certificate to the applicant without a hearing.

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

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

The responding party's notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 was found to be improper because it did not dispute the applicant's estimate of the number of employees.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with provisions for segregating ballots of individuals in disputed positions.

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 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 taken and directed that any ballots cast by individuals whose inclusion in the bargaining unit is in dispute be segregated.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification to represent certain employees of St. Joseph's Health Care, London.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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 directed a representation vote to be held on April 25, 2001, and ordered that any ballots cast by individuals whose inclusion in the bargaining unit is disputed be segregated.

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.

Despite a dispute over the estimate of employees in the proposed bargaining unit, the Board found the applicant established sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be held.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural direction regarding the filing of submissions.

The responding party was directed to file its submissions within five days, and the applicant was given two days thereafter to file a reply.

The applicant union filed a construction industry grievance and a related/successor employer application against the responding employers.

The parties reached a Memorandum of Settlement to resolve the disputes, which included a $90,000 payment to the union and the dismissal of the application against certain responding parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order incorporating the terms of the settlement and declaring the primary employer bound by the provincial collective agreement.

The applicant trade union applied 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 at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file a response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and extended the deadline to May 4, 2001.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union regarding the handling of her discharge grievance.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the union's request to dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The applicant failed to file submissions and was deemed to have accepted the facts set out in the union's response.

The Board found that the union's actions, including a misunderstanding about a steward's attendance and proposing a settlement, did not amount to bad faith.

The application was dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case of a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.