D. A. Patterson

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Union certification application dismissed after failing to win majority in representation vote; one-year bar imposed.

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

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

Teamsters Local Union 938 v. Micro Precision Plastics Ltd., 2000 CanLII 10564

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote among grocery store employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at a grocery store operated by the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and having regard to the agreement of the parties on the bargaining unit description, the Board ordered that a certificate will issue to the applicant.

Teamsters Local Union 91 v. La Coopérative Agricole D’Embrun Ltée, 2000 CanLII 2548

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Union certification granted for editorial employees following a successful representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent editorial employees 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 remaining issues in dispute, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a final decision without a hearing.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 87M Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild v. Sing Tao Daily Limited, 2000 CanLII 4073

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application against the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board noted the correspondence and ordered the application withdrawn.

United Steelworkers of America v. CF Group Inc., 2000 CanLII 3378

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Brian McLean

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 24, 2000

Union certification application dismissed after failing to obtain majority support in representation vote.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The Board imposed a one-year bar on any further applications for certification by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.

Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 540 v. Senior Flexonics (Canada) Limited, 2000 CanLII 2363

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 23, 2000

Representation vote ordered in union certification application.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Mulcaster Mews Inc., 2000 CanLII 10181

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 23, 2000

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant, I.W.A. Canada, Local 2693, submitted correspondence to the Ontario Labour Relations Board requesting to withdraw its application against McKenzie Forest Products Inc. The Board acknowledged the correspondence and ordered the matter withdrawn.

I.W.A. Canada, Local 2693 v. McKenzie Forest Products Inc., 2000 CanLII 6641

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Brian McLean

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 23, 2000

Application for certification granted after representation vote and finding of trade union status.

The applicant, Teamsters Local Union 91, applied for certification.

The only issue in dispute was the trade union status of the applicant, which the parties agreed could be determined without a hearing.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

Teamsters Local Union 91 v. Canadian Waste Services Inc., 2000 CanLII 3930

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Brian McLean

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 19, 2000

Displacement application for certification granted; Board refused to delay issuing certificate pending external proceedings.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the intervenor union requested that the Board postpone issuing a certificate pending the outcome of a contempt motion in Superior Court and internal Canadian Labour Congress proceedings.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no valid reason to delay the final determination and noting that section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires the Board to certify the applicant when a majority of votes are in its favour.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Trinity Lutheran Social Services (London), 2000 CanLII 12947

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Brian McLean

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 19, 2000

Board issues certification certificate, declining to postpone pending external court and CLC proceedings.

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

The intervenor union requested that the Board postpone issuing a certificate pending the outcome of a contempt motion in Superior Court and proceedings under the Canadian Labour Congress constitution.

The Board declined to postpone the decision, noting that over 50 percent of the ballots cast in the representation vote were in favour of the applicant, and section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 requires the Board to certify the applicant in such circumstances.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Corporation of the Township of Dubreuilville, 2000 CanLII 13067

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Brian McLean

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 18, 2000

Board directs representation vote in certification application after finding sufficient union membership evidence.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

The Board found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

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

Unite Ontario Council v. Liz Claiborne (Canada) Limited, 2000 CanLII 6847

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Brian McLean

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 16, 2000

Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure majority support in representation vote.

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

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty per cent 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 dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on subsequent certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit was imposed.

United Steelworkers of America v. Bolton Steel Tube Inc., 2000 CanLII 1689

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Brian McLean

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 15, 2000

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

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

Teamsters Local Union 938 v. Maxxim Medical Canada Limited, 2000 CanLII 8352

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Brian McLean

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 15, 2000

Decertification application granted after union voluntarily abandoned its bargaining rights.

The applicants filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 seeking a declaration that the responding party union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The responding party union advised the Board by letter that it no longer wished to represent the employees.

Pursuant to section 63(17) of the Act, the Board issued a declaration that the responding party no longer represents the employees of the Canadian Air Traffic Control Association.

Christine Fontaine, et al v. Local Union 2228 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 2000 CanLII 7675

J. A. Ronson

OLRB0 cases1980–2001

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 9, 2000

Bram Herlich

OLRB0 cases1990–2026

Individual employee lacks standing to apply for determination of managerial status under section 114(2).

The applicant, an individual employee, filed an application under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a determination that he exercised managerial functions and should be excluded from the bargaining unit.

The employer and the union both asserted that the applicant was a bargaining unit employee and lacked standing to bring the application.

The Board dismissed the application, reaffirming established jurisprudence that section 114(2) is intended only to resolve disputes between the immediate parties to the collective bargaining relationship (the employer and the union), and is not available to individual employees questioning their own status.

Lang v. University of Toronto, 2000 CanLII 12187

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 5, 2000

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

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

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

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 141 v. Moffatt & Powell Goderich Ltd., 2000 CanLII 1662

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 5, 2000

Representation vote directed in union certification application after employer failed to provide required employee numbers.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The responding party employer proposed a different bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but failed to indicate the number of employees in the applicant's proposed unit or submit schedules in a timely manner.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate.

Consequently, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the employees in the voting constituency.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 175 v. Village of Riverside Glen, 2000 CanLII 6365

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 5, 2000

Representation vote directed in certification application; employer identity dispute deferred until after the vote.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The responding party failed to file a timely response but submitted a letter disputing the identity of the employer, claiming another entity was the true employer.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held and deferred the determination of the employer identity issue until after the vote.

Teamsters Local Union 938 v. K & T Companies, 2000 CanLII 2576

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson