Christopher Albertyn

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the consent adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and determined the appropriate bargaining unit based on the agreement of the parties.

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

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application, but imposed a one-year bar on any further applications for certification by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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

The applicants sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

A representation vote was held, and more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees were in opposition to the union.

As no statements of desire to make representations were filed, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

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

A representation vote was held, but the union failed to obtain more than 50% of the ballots cast.

As a result, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the union for this bargaining unit.

The applicant filed a termination application.

The Board previously dismissed the application because less than 40 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The employer requested reconsideration, arguing that one employee quit on the application day and should not be counted.

The Board held that the employee who quit on the application day was still an employee on that date and was properly included in the count.

The Board declined to interfere with its previous decision dismissing the application.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at a retail store.

The responding party employer opposed the proposed bargaining unit, arguing it should include all employees at the location, including those in the auto centre, warehouse, and administrative offices.

The Board found the union's proposed unit, which excluded those ancillary operations, was appropriate for collective bargaining and would not cause serious labour relations problems.

The Board declined to order a representation vote despite the passage of time since the application was filed, as the transitional provisions of the Labour Relations and Employment Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995 required applying the pre-Bill 7 rules.

The Board also determined that a maintenance specialist and a cafeteria worker were employees falling within the bargaining unit.

A certificate was issued to the union.

One Board member dissented, arguing a representation vote should have been ordered.

The applicant, an employee in the Southwestern Ontario bargaining unit, filed an application alleging the union violated the Labour Relations Act by failing to provide adequate notice of a ratification vote.

The union had provided individual written notice to employees with known addresses and published advertisements in local newspapers.

The applicant, who received individual notice and voted, argued that newspaper advertisements were inadequate because some employees allegedly did not see them.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union took reasonable steps to inform employees of the vote in a timely manner, especially given the lack of a common workplace.

The Board also noted the applicant's delay in filing and the substantial prejudice that would result from setting aside the vote.

The employer applied under section 5 of the Labour Relations and Employment Law Amendment Act, 1995 for a declaration that the existing bargaining unit, which combined full-time and part-time employees, was not appropriate for collective bargaining.

The union opposed the application, arguing that a community of interest existed between the two groups.

The Board heard expert evidence that the nature of part-time work has evolved, with part-time employees now sharing similar interests to full-time employees.

Finding that the full-time and part-time employees performed the same work under virtually identical terms and conditions, the Board concluded that a substantial community of interest existed.

The employer's application to split the bargaining unit was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification and won a representation vote.

The employer argued that a second vote should be ordered under the 'build-up' principle because it was opening a second plant and significantly expanding its full-time workforce.

The Board held that the build-up principle survived the enactment of Bill 7, but found that the anticipated increase in employees did not meet the 50% threshold required to order a new vote, particularly because part-time employees were included in the all-employee bargaining unit.

The Board certified the union, with one member dissenting.

The applicant filed an application for termination of the respondent union's bargaining rights.

The Board noted that a first contract application brought by the union was already pending.

Pursuant to section 43(23) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board directed that the termination application be considered together with the first contract application by the panel scheduled to hear the latter.

In an application for certification, the respondent university requested that faculty members on sabbatical and unpaid leave be permitted to vote by mail-in ballot.

The applicant faculty association opposed the request.

A majority of the Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, citing the administrative burden and the statutory mandate for quick representation votes under Bill 7.

The Board held that mail-in ballots are generally only ordered in limited circumstances, such as when employees are dispersed far from the employer's premises or upon agreement of the parties.

Board Member Laing dissented, arguing that denying affected employees the opportunity to vote thwarts their democratic rights.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Ontario Labour Relations Board to determine whether the employer, Meadowcroft Holdings Inc., is a 'hospital' within the meaning of the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act (HLDAA).

The employer operates a retirement living centre providing accommodation, meals, and varying degrees of medical and personal care to elderly residents.

The Board applied an institutional approach rather than a purely labour relations approach, focusing on the nature of the care provided rather than the potential impact of a strike.

The Board concluded that the employer's focus on the accommodation, observation, assessment, and supervision of aged residents qualifies it as a home for the aged, and therefore it is a 'hospital' under the HLDAA.

During a hearing regarding allegations of bad faith bargaining, the company's counsel sought to use a court reporter to record the proceedings.

The union objected, arguing it diminished the Board's control and prejudiced the union.

The Board ruled that the company could use a court reporter, but the transcript would not be the official record.

The Board further ordered that if the company's counsel intended to refer to the transcript during the hearing, they must notify the other parties and provide copies to the union and the Board at the union's and company's respective expenses.

The applicant applied for termination of the union's bargaining rights.

The union responded with allegations of employer initiation under section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and had a pending application for first contract arbitration under section 43.

The Board deferred ordering a representation vote and directed that the termination application be heard together with the first contract arbitration application.

The applicant employee applied to terminate the union's bargaining rights.

The union filed a counter-application alleging the employer initiated the termination application and interfered with the union's representation rights.

The Board found that the employer's principal officer had created a climate of antagonism against the union and had explicitly requested the applicant to bring the decertification application.

Concluding that the employer initiated the application within the meaning of section 63(16) of the Labour Relations Act, the Board exercised its discretion to dismiss the termination application.

The Board also found the employer violated section 70 of the Act by unduly influencing the employee.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit consisting solely of Geographic Full-Time (GFT) secretaries employed by the responding hospital.

The hospital argued that the GFT secretaries did not constitute an appropriate bargaining unit and should be included in a larger unit of all clerical and administrative employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while GFT secretaries had some distinct characteristics, such as precarious job security tied to individual physicians and a history of separate association, creating a separate bargaining unit for them would cause undue fragmentation and serious labour relations problems.

The Board concluded that the proposed unit was not viable for collective bargaining and dismissed the application.

The applicant union sought a declaration under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 that Canada Stampings & Dies Ltd. and Stamptech Ltd. are one employer.

The Board found that the two businesses were related or associated, as they served the same general market, employed the same mode of production, and were under the common control and direction of the same principal.

The Board exercised its discretion to issue the declaration, finding that the establishment of the new operation had an adverse effect on the union's existing bargaining rights by transferring work and potential growth away from the original bargaining unit.

The declaration was made retrospective to the date the union filed its grievance.