D. A. Patterson

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 19, 2001

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 3261 v. University of Toronto Press, Inc., 2001 CanLII 7916

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 19, 2001

Union certified as bargaining agent following a successful representation vote.

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

Following a representation vote in which more than fifty percent 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 certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

Previously scheduled meeting and hearing dates were cancelled.

United Steelworkers of America v. Garda Security Group Inc. and Riscon Security Services Ltd., 2001 CanLII 10884

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 18, 2001

Board declares Administration Officer is not an employee under the Act following withdrawal of objection.

The applicant sought a declaration under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 that the Administration Officer is not an employee under the Act.

The responding party withdrew its objection to the exclusion request.

The Board granted the application and declared that the Administration Officer is not an employee pursuant to the Act.

Social Science Employees Association v. SSEA Staff Union, 2001 CanLII 17159

Timothy W. Sargeant

OLRB0 cases1997–2001

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 17, 2001

Motion to dismiss application without a hearing for lack of a prima facie case denied.

The responding party applied to have the application dismissed without a hearing, alleging it did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to dismiss the application without a hearing, leaving the issue to the panel hearing the matter.

Juan Angel Martinez v. Ridgewood Frame Inc., 2001 CanLII 16789

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 11, 2001

Representation vote ordered in certification application; ballots from disputed locations to be segregated.

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 proposed a different, more inclusive unit.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with certain ballots segregated pending resolution of the bargaining unit dispute.

The applicant's request for a mail-in ballot was denied.

A dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Public Service Alliance of Canada v. Canadian Corps of Commissionaires – Ottawa Division, 2001 CanLII 11159

J. A. Rundle

D. A. Patterson

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 11, 2001

Representation vote ordered in certification application; ballots to be segregated by location despite employer's section 8.1 notice.

The applicant 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 the applicant established sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board directed that the vote be taken and that ballots cast at the two different locations be segregated and counted separately.

The Board also directed that ballots of individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

Board Member Rundle dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed because the employer disagreed with the union's estimate.

United Steelworkers of America v. Alros Products Ltd. carrying of business as Polytarp Products, 2001 CanLII 10401

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote directed in union certification application despite dispute over bargaining unit composition.

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 established sufficient membership support for a representation vote and directed that a vote be taken.

The Board deferred the determination of whether certain individuals exercise managerial functions or are employed in a confidential capacity to a post-vote hearing.

IWA - Canada v. Innovative Converting Inc., 2001 CanLII 20441

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against the responding hospital.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and ordered the application withdrawn.

Service Employees International Union, Local 220 v. Norfolk General Hospital, 2001 CanLII 12142

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote ordered in union certification application; majority declines to seal ballot box despite employer's section 8.1 notice.

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 majority of the Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support and ordered a representation vote, declining to seal the ballot box.

A dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to subsection 8.1(4) of the Act.

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Ontario Korean Businessmen’s Association, 2001 CanLII 9521

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote ordered and ballots to be counted despite employer's section 8.1 notice.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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

The majority of the Board found the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and ordered a representation vote to be taken and counted.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed when an employer gives such notice.

IWA - Canada v. 2002034 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Chateau Cornwall Retirement Centre, 2001 CanLII 17587

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 21, 2001

Board schedules expedited hearing for employer's application alleging an unlawful strike by the union.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union and its officials authorized and encouraged an unlawful strike.

The Board outlined the statutory provisions prohibiting unlawful strikes during the term of a collective agreement and the potential remedies available to an employer.

Recognizing the need for expedition in unlawful strike situations, the Board scheduled an expedited hearing for the matter.

Lafarge Canada Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union 141, 2001 CanLII 20442

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 21, 2001

Representation vote directed in application for termination of bargaining rights for registered nurses.

The applicants 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 in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the employees in the bargaining unit.

I. Americano v. Service Employees’ International Union Local 220, 2001 CanLII 4422

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 21, 2001

Representation vote directed in certification application with segregated ballots for disputed locations.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party employer disagreed with the proposed bargaining unit description, arguing it should encompass all five of its locations in Middlesex County rather than just the two in London.

The employer also filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which the Board found invalid as it disputed the size of the employer's proposed unit rather than the union's.

The Board directed a representation vote, ordering that ballots from the two London locations be segregated and counted separately from the other three locations.

Service Employees International Union Local 220 v. Canadian Deaf Blind Ruebella Association, 2001 CanLII 3402

Patrick Kelly

OLRB0 cases1999–2019

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 15, 2001

Union certification granted; objections regarding insufficient notice of representation vote dismissed.

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

A representation vote was held, and the majority of ballots were cast in favour of the union.

The responding party and eight objecting employees requested a second vote, alleging insufficient notice of the vote and a change in the voting time.

The Board dismissed the objections, noting that the responding party had agreed to the issuance of a final certificate and that the objecting employees did not allege they were personally unable to vote.

The Board issued a certificate to the applicant union.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2001 CanLII 16733

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 14, 2001

Representation vote directed in union certification application despite employer's dispute over bargaining unit estimate.

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

The employer also alleged improper service.

The majority of the Board found the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and directed a representation vote, with disputed ballots to be segregated.

The dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Capital Environmental Resources Inc., 2001 CanLII 11631

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 14, 2001

Representation vote ordered in certification application; ballot box not sealed despite employer's section 8.1 notice.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent certain employees of the Toronto Transit Commission.

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 compared the membership evidence against the employer's information and found the numerical difference was not significant.

The Board ordered a representation vote and directed that the ballots be counted, with any disputed positions segregated.

A dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2001 CanLII 15285

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 14, 2001

Representation vote directed in union certification application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The Board determined that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it appeared to have the requisite forty percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with segregated ballots for two disputed positions.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Cornerstone/Le Pilier, 2001 CanLII 17010

Patrick Kelly

OLRB0 cases1999–2019

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 11, 2001

Board grants successorship declarations following trade union merger and confirms applicant's trade union status.

The applicant trade union brought applications for certification and for declarations of successorship under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following a merger with several predecessor locals.

The Board first determined that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act, based on its history, constitution, and uncontested submissions.

The Board then granted the successorship applications, declaring that the applicant acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor locals.

Despite concerns about the lack of segregated voting by bargaining unit in one of the applications, the Board granted the relief because there were no employee objections and the union's constitution had been complied with.

Service Employees International Union Local 528 v. Service Employees International Union Local 639, 2001 CanLII 19585

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson