Board directs representation vote for proposed bargaining unit after finding sufficient membership support.
The applicant trade union applied for certification.
The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit (not less than 40%) to obtain a representation vote.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency.
Representation vote ordered in certification application after union established sufficient membership support.
The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.
The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in the agreed-upon bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.
The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on November 21, 2000, for all eligible employees in the voting constituency.
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.
A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty percent 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 certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board considered the request.
The Board granted leave for the withdrawal.
The application was formally withdrawn.
Representation vote ordered and ballots to be counted despite employer's section 8.1 notice.
The responding party agreed with the bargaining unit description but disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board found the numerical difference was not significant and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support.
The Board ordered a representation vote to be taken and counted.
One Board Member dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed.
Representation vote directed in certification application pending determination of trade union status.
The applicant union filed an application for certification.
The Board found that the applicant had not yet established its trade union status under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and would be required to make submissions on this issue.
However, based on the agreement of the parties regarding the appropriate bargaining unit and the appearance of sufficient membership support, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the employees in the voting constituency.
Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit of nurses; ballots sealed pending further decision.
The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent a bargaining unit of registered and graduate nurses at the responding party hospital.
The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.
The Board directed a representation vote to be held.
Due to a dispute over the inclusion of several positions, individuals in those positions were permitted to cast segregated ballots.
The ballots were ordered sealed pending a further decision, as an intervenor union had also filed a certification application on the same day.
Application adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.
The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.
Representation vote directed in displacement application for certification.
The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.
The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and that it established sufficient membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.
The responding party agreed with the bargaining unit description and that the ballots should be counted.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.
Union certified as bargaining agent following successful representation vote.
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 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.
Union certification granted after majority support in representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees of the responding party.
Following a representation vote where 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 found the bargaining unit appropriate and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.
Board ordered sealed ballot boxes in displacement applications to be opened and counted.
The applicant trade union requested that the sealed ballot boxes in several displacement applications be opened and counted, following a recent Board decision in related files.
The responding parties and intervenor either agreed or took no position.
The Board directed a Labour Relations Officer to meet with the parties to open the ballot boxes and count the ballots.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board following settlement.
The applicant union sought to withdraw its application following a settlement reached between the parties on November 9, 2000.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Extension of time for filing response granted on consent.
The Board granted an extension of time for filing a response to November 24, 2000, on consent of the parties.
Request to limit witness production at Toronto hearing denied; responding party must utilize scheduled days.
The responding party in a union certification application sought to be relieved of its obligation to produce its witnesses at a hearing scheduled in Toronto, proposing to bring only one witness from Ottawa.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, noting its policy that the first two days of hearings for parties located more than a three-hour drive from Toronto must be held in Toronto.
As the responding party bore the onus, it was responsible for ensuring sufficient witnesses were present to make full use of the scheduled hearing days.
Grievance application adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.
The applicant union filed a grievance against the responding party.
On consent of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.
Board granted responding party's request to extend the deadline for filing a response.
The responding party requested an extension of time to file a response.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and extended the deadline to November 16, 2000.
The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding employers.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
Applications withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant, Sifto Canada Inc., sought to withdraw its applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The Board granted leave and the applications were withdrawn.
Application for review terminated because applicant's cheque for payment into trust bounced.
The applicant filed an application for review of an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act and tendered a cheque for payment into trust.
The Director of Employment Standards advised the Board that the cheque did not clear the applicant's account.
The Board held that under subsection 68(7) of the Act, an application for review is not properly made unless the required amount is paid into trust.
As the monies were not paid into trust, the application could not proceed and was terminated.