Caroline Rowan

The intervenor, the Owen Sound Professional Fire Fighters Association, requested an extension of time to file its intervention.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and extended the time for filing to September 15, 2000.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding party disputed the bargaining unit description and employee estimate, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and ordered a representation vote, with disputed ballots to be segregated.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing the vote should not take place or the ballot box should be sealed until section 8.1 issues are resolved.

The applicant employees applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

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

The union requested dismissal without a vote under section 63(16) and asked that the ballot box be sealed.

The Board directed a representation vote and declined to seal the ballot box, deferring the section 63(16) allegations to a post-vote hearing if necessary.

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

The Board ordered a representation vote, directing that ballots cast by individuals in disputed positions be segregated and not counted until further order or agreement.

A dissenting board member would have sealed the ballot box or delayed the vote until the section 8.1 issues were resolved at a hearing.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent office, clerical, and technical employees at the responding party hospital.

The hospital disputed the union'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 union's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the union had established sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote, directing that individuals in disputed positions cast segregated ballots.

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

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 membership support of not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and established a voting constituency, while noting disputes between the parties regarding the inclusion of students, temporary employees, and certain supervisory and clerical positions.

Ballots cast by individuals in disputed positions were ordered to be segregated.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted an adjournment of the hearing scheduled for September 8, 2000, based on the agreement of the parties.

The hearing was rescheduled to September 20, 2000.

The applicant union referred two grievances to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to a hearing, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement resolving the grievances and requested a consent order.

The Board issued the consent order, declaring the employer bound by the collective agreement, finding it violated the agreement, and ordering the payment of $20,000 in damages.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union violated section 75 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to allow him to sign an apprenticeship contract and removing him from the out-of-work list.

The union reconsidered the contract after receiving reports from co-workers that the applicant was smoking marijuana on his own time and at the job site.

The Board found that the union's decision was based on legitimate safety concerns, given the safety-sensitive nature of boilermaker work.

The Board concluded that the union did not act in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith, and dismissed the application.

The applicants filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding union sought to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board directed the applicants to file submissions in response to the union's position and to clarify the nature of the grievance.

The Board confirmed its direction made during a telephone conference to adjourn the hearing dates on consent.

The Board set a schedule for the intervenor to file written submissions regarding its objection to continuing the hearing due to the applicant's death, and for the other parties to respond.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for the employees of the respondent.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in favour of the applicant, and with no notice of intention to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

Two rival unions, the SEIU and the CAW, filed unfair labour practice complaints against each other arising from an organizing drive and a displacement certification application.

The CAW alleged that the SEIU breached section 87(2) of the Labour Relations Act by circulating defamatory allegations about CAW supporters to the bargaining unit.

The SEIU raised preliminary objections.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 96(4) of the Act to dismiss the CAW's complaint without an inquiry, noting that the underlying certification application had already been dismissed, the alleged misconduct had ceased, and litigating the matter would not serve a useful labour relations purpose.

On consent, the SEIU's complaint was also dismissed.

The parties agreed to adjourn the applications sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matters will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

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

The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the application would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees at Beach Grove Golf & Country Club.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The Board also amended the style of cause to reflect the correct name of the responding party and cancelled previously set meeting and hearing dates.

The union applied for a related employer declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, arguing that MacIsaac Mining and Tunneling and MacRanald Enterprises Inc. were associated or related businesses under common control and direction.

The responding parties conceded common control but disputed that their activities were related, noting MacRanald's primary business was gaming while MacIsaac's was mine contracting.

The Board found that both entities engaged in construction work on a renovation project, satisfying the requirement for related activities.

The Board exercised its discretion to make the declaration, finding that MacRanald's performance of construction work as a general contractor eroded the union's bargaining rights.

The applicant filed an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act for a review of a refusal to issue an order.

A hearing was scheduled, but neither the applicant nor the responding employer appeared.

After waiting the standard thirty minutes, the Board convened the hearing and dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for the employees of the respondent.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in favour of the union, and with no objections filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate.

The Board ordered that a certificate be issued to the applicant union.