David McKee

The applicant union filed a request for reconsideration and a related employer/sale of business application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board deferred the request for reconsideration until the determination of the related employer/sale of business application, directing that both be determined by the same panel.

The Board also extended the time for the responding parties to file their response to the related employer application.

The applicant, who is the owner and President of the employer, brought an application to terminate the responding party's bargaining rights under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board dismissed the application because section 63 requires the application to be brought by an employee in the bargaining unit.

Under section 1(3)(b) of the Act, a person who exercises managerial functions is not deemed to be an employee.

As the owner and President, the applicant exercised managerial functions and therefore lacked standing to bring the application.

The applicant, a part-time employee, filed a duty of fair representation complaint alleging that her union treated her differently by not converting her to full-time status, while other employees were converted without meeting the required hours.

The union provided a detailed response explaining the circumstances of the other conversions.

The Board found that while the application could not be dismissed on a prima facie basis due to a factual dispute, the applicant had failed to provide sufficient particulars to cast doubt on the union's plausible explanation.

The Board exercised its discretion to adjourn the proceeding, requiring the applicant to file particulars of facts raising a plausible issue, failing which the application would be terminated.

The applicant union filed applications for the referral of a grievance to arbitration and alleging a sale of business and related employer status among the responding parties.

Before the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued a consent order declaring a sale of business from Rimwood to Gridd, binding Gridd to the provincial collective agreement, and ordering Gridd to pay $45,000 in damages for violating the agreement.

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

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, having regard to the agreement of the parties.

If neither party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at a successor hospital.

The Board found the application timely under section 28(2) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, as it was filed within the 10-day window following a restructuring request.

Finding that the union had the requisite 40% membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote for an all-employee voting constituency, leaving disputes over specific exclusions to be resolved later.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board determined the appropriate voting constituency and directed that a representation vote be held, leaving the final description of the bargaining unit and any section 8.1 arguments to be resolved after the vote.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of at least forty percent in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be held among the eligible employees.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

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

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support and directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the proposed bargaining unit.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The SEIU filed an unfair labour practice complaint and sought new representation votes under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, alleging irregularities by the Hospital and CUPE prior to the votes.

The Hospital and CUPE brought a motion to dismiss the complaint under s. 23(19) of the Act.

The Board granted the motion, finding that despite any alleged irregularities, the results of the representation votes reflected the true wishes of the majority of the employees in the bargaining units.

The Board appointed CUPE as the bargaining agent for both the Service Full-Time and Service Part-Time units.