Caroline Rowan

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to pursue a grievance regarding the employer's failure to renew his contract.

The union requested the application be dismissed for delay and for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the application on the ground of delay, finding that the applicant waited over two years after his contract was not renewed and after he met with the union representative to file the complaint.

The Board rejected the applicant's explanation that he was conducting a two-year investigation, as the facts regarding the union's conduct were known to him at the time of the meeting.

The applicant's application was adjourned sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

As no party requested that the Board proceed with the matter within that time, the Board terminated the application.

The application was previously adjourned sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

As none of the parties requested that the Board proceed with the matter within that timeframe, the application was administratively terminated.

The applicant requested to withdraw his application against the responding party union, noting that it was filed at the wrong Board.

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

The application was previously adjourned sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

As none of the parties requested that the Board proceed with the matter within that timeframe, the application was terminated.

The employer filed an unfair labour practice application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act alleging misconduct by the union during its organizing campaign.

The employer requested that the material filed in support of this application be transferred to the related certification proceedings to support a request for relief under section 11(2) of the Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request to transfer the material but directed that the representation vote proceed as previously scheduled.

The applicant union and responding employers participated in a conference call to address preliminary issues in an unfair labour practice complaint and a related employer application.

The Board denied the employers' request to change the hearing venue from Toronto to Thunder Bay, citing the Board's practice and costs.

The Board granted the union's unopposed request to amend its pleadings to add particulars regarding an alleged employer-supported decertification bid.

The Board also ordered the production of certain documents, including staff schedules, finding them arguably relevant to the related employer application, and granted the parties access to previous Board files.

The applicant 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 to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency, with disputed quality control lab employees casting segregated ballots.

The responding party's claim that the application was a nullity due to a procedural defect was deferred to a post-vote hearing.

The applicant applied 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 and that not less than forty per cent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board 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.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with disputed positions casting segregated ballots.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's hotel.

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 of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and established the voting constituency, with provisions for segregating ballots of disputed individuals.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union, alleging it failed to pursue a grievance regarding her seniority ranking in 1987.

The union raised a preliminary objection that the application should be dismissed due to delay.

The Board agreed, finding that the nine-year delay from the initial events in 1987, and the further one-year delay from the final events in 1996, was excessive and unreasonable, causing significant prejudice to the union and employer.

The application was dismissed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a consent order directing the responding parties to produce documents outlined in a subpoena served on Philip Nelson.

The Board also adjourned the hearing to new dates in April and May 2000.

Pursuant to section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board revoked a previous decision dated December 17, 1999, to correct an error regarding continuation dates.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision amending a typographical error in paragraph 3 of its previous decision dated December 31, 1999, substituting the word 'claimant' for 'applicant'.

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

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

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant union sought to certify a bargaining unit of firefighters working for the Municipality of Leamington.

The central issue was whether the individuals were 'volunteer firefighters' under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, in which case the Labour Relations Act would apply, or 'firefighters', in which case it would not.

The Board found that the firefighters were regularly employed on a salaried basis and assigned to fire protection services, and thus fell within the definition of 'firefighter'.

Consequently, the Labour Relations Act did not apply, and the application for certification was dismissed.

The applicant City applied for declarations that the responding trade unions no longer represent its construction industry employees, asserting it is a non-construction employer under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding unions raised a constitutional challenge to sections 127.1 and 127.2 of the Act under the Charter.

The applicant sought to have the constitutional challenge determined on a preliminary basis, either by a motion to strike or following evidence on the constitutional issue alone.

The Board declined to hear the constitutional challenge as a preliminary matter, finding it premature as the Charter question would be moot if the applicant failed to establish it was a non-construction employer.

The Board directed that the constitutional issue be heard at the end of the proceedings.

The employer applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights under s. 65(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the union failed to bargain a renewal collective agreement.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application as untimely under s. 67(2).

The Board found that the timelines in s. 67(2) apply to applications under s. 65(2).

Because a conciliation officer had been appointed and no 'no board' report had been issued, the closed period remained in effect.

The application was dismissed as untimely.

The Canadian Labour Congress (C.L.C.) applied for certification to represent a unit of employees at the University of Toronto.

The employer objected on the basis that the C.L.C. was not a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the C.L.C. is an organization of trade unions, not an organization of employees, and its purposes do not include the regulation of relations between employees and employers.

The Board also considered whether a directly chartered local, Local 2001, had status, but found it had not been properly established as of the application date.

The application for certification was dismissed.