Caroline Rowan

The applicant union sought leave to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant trade union applied 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 the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate but noted a significant numerical difference between the parties' estimates.

The Board directed a representation vote with the ballot box sealed until the Board orders otherwise or the parties agree.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to process his grievance regarding a surplus/layoff notice to arbitration.

The union had grouped his grievance with others and ultimately withdrew it as part of a larger settlement.

The applicant complained about the union's failure to adequately explain his bumping rights and its failure to communicate the withdrawal of his grievance in a timely manner.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union had honestly assessed the merits of the grievance and that the delay in communication, while regrettable, did not amount to arbitrary conduct.

The applicant union indicated it no longer sought any remedy against Sumbeam Residential Development Centre.

The Board ordered that Sumbeam Residential Development Centre be deleted from the style of cause as an affected party.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement 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 numerical difference was not significant and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

A dissenting Board member argued that the vote should not take place or the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved at a hearing.

The applicant trade 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 agreement of the parties regarding the appropriate bargaining unit and the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment and cancelled the scheduled hearing dates.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees in the responding party's ambulance service operations.

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.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the requisite 40% membership threshold was met.

The Board directed a representation vote, but ordered that the ballots be individually segregated and the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the disputes regarding the bargaining unit description and timeliness.

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

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

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the numerical difference between the parties' estimates was not significant.

The majority ordered a representation vote.

One Board Member dissented, arguing the vote should be delayed or the ballot box sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved at a hearing.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding party failed to file a response.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support of at least forty percent to warrant a representation vote.

The intervenor objected to the vote and requested that the ballot box be sealed pending the resolution of alleged unfair labour practices and proceedings before the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's objections, noting that similar objections had been dismissed in other applications, and directed that a representation vote be held.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding party failed to file a response.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support and directed a representation vote.

The intervenor requested that the vote be delayed or the ballot box sealed due to alleged unfair labour practices and pending proceedings before the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board declined to delay the vote or seal the ballot box, noting it had previously rejected similar objections in related applications.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees currently represented by the intervenor.

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

The intervenor requested that the representation vote be delayed or the ballot box sealed pending the resolution of unfair labour practice allegations and other proceedings before the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's objections, finding no reason to delay the vote or seal the ballot box, and directed that a representation vote be taken.

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 Board found that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

A representation vote was ordered for the eligible employees.

A dissenting Board member would have held a hearing before ordering a vote or sealed the ballot box until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees in the mail room 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 granted the application and directed that a certificate issue.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor union by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration.

The Crown in Right of Ontario (Ministry of Health) requested an extension of time to file an intervention in a matter brought by the applicant against the Ministry and the Ontario Public Service Employee Union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to ten days from the date of the decision.

The applicant requested an extension of the timelines for filing a written statement directed by the Board in a previous decision.

The Board granted the request, extending the deadlines by two weeks.

The intervenor, Service Employees International Union, Local 204, requested reconsideration of a Board decision directing a representation vote.

The intervenor sought to terminate the certification application, hold the vote in abeyance, or seal the ballot box due to alleged technical breaches of the Rules.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision, noting that the alleged breaches could be raised at a hearing after the vote if necessary.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that the requisite 40% membership support was met.

Despite a dispute over the geographic description of the bargaining unit and allegations of unfair labour practices raised by the intervenor, the Board directed that a representation vote be held and declined to seal the ballot box or delay the vote.