Caroline Rowan

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further applications for certification by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

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

The Board ordered a representation vote, with disputed ballots to be segregated.

The dissenting Board member would have sealed the ballot box until the section 8.1 issues were resolved at a hearing.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The 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.

The intervenor requested that the ballot box be sealed due to alleged unfair labour practices, but the Board declined, noting it had previously rejected similar requests in related applications.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least 40% of the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but did not dispute the union's estimate of the number of employees.

The Board directed a representation vote.

The intervenor union requested that the ballot box be sealed due to alleged unfair labour practices, but the Board declined, noting it had previously rejected similar requests in related displacement applications.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and proposed a different bargaining unit.

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

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues are resolved.

The applicant brought a proceeding against the responding party before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board ordered that the proceeding be terminated.

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 filed an application against the responding party union.

On agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it would be deemed terminated if no request to proceed was made.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, disputing the union's estimate of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and proposing a different unit.

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

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.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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.

The Board directed a representation vote to be held, with segregated ballots for individuals whose inclusion in the bargaining unit was disputed due to confidential capacity or managerial status.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant, Canadian Union of Public Employees, sought to withdraw its application against the City of Mississauga.

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

The responding party requested a reconsideration of the Board's July 7, 2000 decision, arguing it had filed a timely response to the application for certification.

The Board reviewed the matter, confirmed the response was filed within the time stipulated by Rule 69, and corrected its previous decision by deleting paragraph 3.

The Board directed the responding party to post copies of the corrected decision.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board 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 Board found the application timely as no collective agreement had been made since certification.

Finding that at least forty percent of the employees expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union, the Board directed a representation vote.

Due to objections raised by the responding party under subsection 63(16) of the Act, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed until further order or agreement of the parties.

The applicant employee filed an application under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act for a review of an employment standards officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for unpaid wages.

The Ministry of Labour raised a preliminary objection that the Board lacked jurisdiction because no written order or written refusal had been issued, and the two-year period for a deemed refusal had not elapsed.

The Board agreed, finding the application premature, and dismissed it without prejudice to the employee's right to file a fresh application at the appropriate time.

The applicant employer sought an adjournment of a hearing to review an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The applicant's counsel requested the adjournment on the day of the hearing because another lawyer with carriage of the file had accepted a retainer on another matter, and for unspecified personal and corporate reasons.

The claimant opposed the adjournment.

The Board denied the adjournment request, noting it does not grant adjournments for the convenience of counsel or for unspecified reasons.

As the applicant called no evidence and made no submissions on the merits, the application was dismissed and the Order to Pay was affirmed.

The union and intervenor requested that the applicant's duty of fair representation complaint be dismissed without a hearing or consultation due to delay and failure to make out a prima facie case.

After reviewing the applicant's submissions, the Board declined to dismiss the application without a consultation.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be set down for a consultation, where the preliminary objection regarding delay could be raised.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the application sine die.

The responding parties failed to file a response or attend the hearing to oppose the request.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The employee applied for a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order to pay outstanding wages, vacation pay, and statutory holiday pay.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Ministry agreed with the employee's claim that the employer failed to remit statutory deductions as required by the employment contract.

Based on the uncontradicted evidence, the Board found the employee was owed the claimed amount and ordered the employer to pay $3,485.04.

The union applied for certification in the construction industry.

The sole issue was the status of two individuals, Michael Mitchell and Randy Hall, to cast ballots in the representation vote, depending on whether they performed bargaining unit work for the majority of the day on the application date.

Applying the Gilvesy test, the Board found that Mitchell spent the majority of his time operating a packer (bargaining unit work) and his ballot should be counted.

Conversely, Hall spent only a minority of his shift operating an excavator, so his ballot was ordered destroyed.