H. Peacock

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 23, 2001

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote with no remaining issues in dispute.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of office, clerical, and technical 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 remaining issues in dispute between the parties, the Board issued a final decision without a hearing.

A certificate was ordered to issue to the applicant.

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2001 CanLII 9146

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Certificate issued to applicant union following successful representation vote in displacement application.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification for a bargaining unit of maintenance and service employees at the Waterloo Catholic District School Board.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and the resolution of subsequent representations, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a certificate to the applicant.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. The Waterloo Catholic District School Board, 2001 CanLII 4298

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Union application withdrawn and Labour Relations Officer meeting cancelled.

The applicant trade union withdrew its application in Board File 0277-01-U. The Board cancelled the Labour Relations Officer's meeting scheduled for Board File 0278-01-U and noted a new date would be set.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 2548 v. Central Park Lodges (Windsor Place), 2001 CanLII 3882

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed in certification application; section 8.1 notice dismissed by majority.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but did not dispute the applicant's estimate of employees or propose a different bargaining unit.

The majority of the Board dismissed the section 8.1 issue and directed a representation vote without sealing the ballot box.

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

Northern Ontario Joint Council of the Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union v. 1468678 Ontario Limited, 2001 CanLII 15113

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Representation vote ordered in certification application; majority declined to seal ballot box despite employer's notice.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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 the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support for a representation vote.

The Board directed a representation vote to be taken.

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

United Steelworkers of America v. Iron Mountain Incorporated, 2001 CanLII 11064

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Board clarified proposed bargaining unit description and extended time for response.

The responding party requested clarification of the bargaining unit description proposed by the applicant union.

The applicant provided a letter clarifying the description to parallel the full-time unit provisions.

The Board noted the clarification and extended the time limit for the responding party to file its response.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. The Corporation of the Town of Ajax, 2001 CanLII 5505

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote ordered in workplace despite union's surveillance concerns; ballot box not sealed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested an interim order regarding voting arrangements, expressing concern over workplace video surveillance.

The employer disputed the bargaining unit description and the number of employees, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board directed the vote to be held at the workplace, instructing the returning officer to ensure ballot secrecy.

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

United Steelworkers of America v. Cinram International Inc., 2001 CanLII 9597

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote ordered in displacement application for certification; dissent would seal ballot box.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.

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

The Board found the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support for a representation vote.

The Board directed a representation vote based on the voting constituency in the most recent collective agreement.

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

National Automobile, Aeropace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Muskoka Ambulance Service 299340/1339175 Ontario Limited, 2001 CanLII 14339

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Application withdrawn following settlement between the parties.

The applicant, Ecuhome Corporation, filed an application against the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Having regard to the settlement reached by the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.

Ecuhome Corporation v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, 2001 CanLII 10124

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

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

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 at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time of the application.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with segregated ballots for disputed supervisor positions.

I.W.A. Canada, Local 2693 Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada v. Pineal Lake Lumber, 2001 CanLII 2676

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Request for reconsideration dismissed following withdrawal.

The Board received a Request for Reconsideration dated July 4, 2001.

By letter dated July 10, 2001, the request was withdrawn.

The Board dismissed the Request for Reconsideration.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175 v. North American Lumber Limited, 2001 CanLII 5513

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Application withdrawn by agreement of the parties.

The applicant union filed an application against the responding party employer.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Marks Lumber Limited, 2001 CanLII 4345

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 18, 2001

Request for reconsideration of decision ordering representation vote denied.

The Board received a Request for Reconsideration seeking to revoke or vary its decision to order a representation vote.

The requesting party argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to order the vote.

The Board noted that its jurisdiction under section 66 of the Act was raised during the hearing.

The Board confirmed its previous decision that a test of employee wishes was appropriate and that holding the vote would have no impact on the parties' rights to pursue their positions in the pending applications.

The Request for Reconsideration was denied.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 2001 CanLII 11177

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 18, 2001

Representation vote ordered in certification application after union established sufficient membership support.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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 numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and established the voting constituency, with disputed positions to be segregated.

United Steelworkers of America v. Marusa Marketing Inc., 2001 CanLII 8237

Vic Morden

1 case2001–2001

Melissa Kronick

19 cases1994–2014

Lara Goldman

1 case2001–2001

John Lewis

2 cases1992–2001

Timothy W. Sargeant

OLRB0 cases1997–2001

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 17, 2001

Board orders production of contract subject to strict confidentiality and non-disclosure conditions.

The applicant union sought production of a contract referred to during the examination-in-chief of a witness.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the responding party to produce the document to the applicant's counsel, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The responding party was permitted to obscure financial, proprietary, and sensitive business information not related to the witness's evidence, and the applicant's counsel was prohibited from copying or sharing the document with anyone, including the applicant union itself.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. RMH Teleservices International Inc., 2001 CanLII 4406

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 16, 2001

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit of parking attendants at the theatre.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent parking attendants at the responding party's theatre.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate.

Having determined that the applicant established sufficient membership support, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

Teamsters Local Union 938 v. Princess of Wales Theatre, 2001 CanLII 7683

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 16, 2001

Representation vote directed in application for certification 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 proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with disputed ballots to be segregated.

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local No. 880 v. Dresden Ready-Mix Ltd., 2001 CanLII 18749

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 16, 2001

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit of hospital medical laboratory staff.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent medical laboratory technologists, technicians, and assistants at the responding hospital.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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 established the voting constituency, with provisions for segregated ballots for disputed positions.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 2001 CanLII 7680

Warren Smith

3 cases1998–2001

Stephen J. Shamie

12 cases1989–2020

Rolf Gerstenberger

1 case2001–2001

Roger Fulton

4 cases1993–2001

Robert Jones

13 cases1998–2020

Elizabeth M. Brown

7 cases1998–2013

Celia Harte

2 cases1997–2001

Brian Shell

Not Practising Law66 cases1981–2021

Amanda Hunter

17 cases1998–2021

R. O. MacDowell

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock