H. Peacock

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 6, 2001

Brian McLean

OLRB0 cases1998–2012

Board directs representation vote for LINC instructors at York Catholic District School Board.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification to represent Language Instructors for New Comers to Canada (LINC) employed by the York Catholic District School Board.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and determined the appropriate bargaining unit based on the parties' agreement.

Finding that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. York Catholic District School Board, 2001 CanLII 20945

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 6, 2001

Brian McLean

OLRB0 cases1998–2012

Representation vote ordered in certification application despite employer's section 8.1 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 that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to obtain a representation vote.

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

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues are resolved.

Teamsters International Union, Local 847, AFL-CIO-CLC v. ABC Group Exterior Systems Inc., 2001 CanLII 12879

Russell Goodfellow

OLRB0 cases1999–2001

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 27, 2000

Representation vote directed in displacement application for certification at a retirement centre.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken to allow employees to choose between the applicant and the intervenor.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Braemar Retirement Centre, 2000 CanLII 3099

Russell Goodfellow

OLRB0 cases1999–2001

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 27, 2000

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicants sought to withdraw their application against the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 1287.

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

Kimberly Court v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE) Local 1287, 2000 CanLII 7086

Rob Turk

1 case2000–2000

Mark Stone

12 cases1997–2013

Dan Robichaud

2 cases2000–2000

Patrick Kelly

OLRB0 cases1999–2019

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 21, 2000

Board issues consent order for certification and future representation vote following sale of business.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The parties entered into a memorandum of agreement acknowledging a sale of business and the future intermingling of employees represented by two different unions.

The Board issued a consent order incorporating the agreement, which provided for the issuance of a certificate to the applicant for certain locations, the continuation of the intervenor's bargaining rights at other locations, and a future representation vote to determine the bargaining agent for the intermingled employees.

United Steelworkers of America v. Universal Showcase Ltd., 2000 CanLII 8320

Stephen Raymond

OLRB0 cases2000–2001

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 18, 2000

Application withdrawn on 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.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175 v. Famous Players Inc., Yorkdale, 2000 CanLII 7963

Mary Ellen Cummings

OLRB0 cases1991–2009

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 18, 2000

Board ordered sealed ballots counted in representation vote despite pending unfair labour practice allegations.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held and the ballot box was sealed due to an employee's allegations that the employer required her to sign a union membership card as a condition of employment.

The applicant, employer, and an intervening union all requested that the ballots be counted, suggesting it might bring the matter to a speedy end.

The Board directed that the ballots be counted to advance the matter and shorten the period of workplace disruption.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 333 v. Leisure World Inc., 2000 CanLII 9365

Mary Ellen Cummings

OLRB0 cases1991–2009

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 15, 2000

Board postponed consideration of subsequent certification applications pending final decision on the original application.

Two unions filed subsequent applications for certification to represent the same employees who were already subject to an earlier certification application by another union.

A representation vote had already been taken.

Pursuant to section 111(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board exercised its discretion to postpone consideration of the subsequent applications until a final decision was issued on the original application.

Canadian Health Care Workers v. Leisureworld Inc., 2000 CanLII 7904

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardDec 15, 2000

David A. McKee

OLRB0 cases1999–2001

Reconsideration application adjourned sine die; timeliness issue deferred to future hearing.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a prior Board decision.

An intervenor requested reconsideration of the Board's finding that the application was timely.

The Board adjourned the application sine die and varied its prior decision to state that the timeliness issue may be addressed when the matter comes on for hearing, noting that 'days' means calendar days and referencing the Interpretation Act.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. St. Joseph’s Hospital, 2000 CanLII 6220

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Board directed a representation vote for union certification based on the agreement of the parties.

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

The parties agreed to resolve all outstanding issues by holding another representation vote.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken on December 15, 2000.

Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183 v. John Ewing & Co. Inc., 2000 CanLII 8647

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Application adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.

The applicant union and responding employer 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 matter will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

Communications, energy and Paperworkers Union Local 87-M Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild v. The Expositor, Hollinger Canadian Newspapers L.P., 2000 CanLII 8270

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Board directs intervenor to provide particulars of employer interference allegations and defers ballot counting.

The applicant union requested a copy of a letter from an intervenor and particulars of her allegations regarding employer interference in a certification application.

The Board directed the intervenor to provide written submissions detailing who made the alleged statements and when.

The Board declined the applicant's request to count the ballots at an upcoming meeting, noting the request could be renewed at the scheduled hearing.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 333 v. Leisure World Inc., 2000 CanLII 2070

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit in application for certification.

The applicant trade union filed an application 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.

Based on the agreement of the parties regarding the appropriate bargaining unit and the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Northwestern Ontario Recycle Association, 2000 CanLII 10265

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed in displacement application for certification despite bargaining unit dispute.

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

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate 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 in its proposed bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW –Canada) v. Precision Plate Ltd., 2000 CanLII 7680

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit at Summit Food Service Distributors Inc.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Summit Food Service Distributors Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations 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.

United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 206 v. Summit Food Service Distributors Inc., 2000 CanLII 10752

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote ordered in displacement certification application; employer's timeliness and section 8.1 objections dismissed.

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

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

The responding party argued the application was untimely due to the appointment of a conciliation officer, but the Board held it was timely because the collective agreement had not yet expired.

The Board also dismissed the responding party's section 8.1 notice as there was no dispute over the number of employees or the core bargaining unit description.

A representation vote was ordered.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Woarkers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. The Corporation of the Township of Terrace Bay, 2000 CanLII 7521

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Applications adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.

The Ontario Public Service Employees' Union filed applications against the John Howard Society of Peel.

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

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

Ontario Public Service Employees' Union v. John Howard Society of Peel, 2000 CanLII 11091

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Board defers dismissal of section 11(2) allegations to hearing panel but warns about lacking particulars.

In an application for certification, a representation vote was held.

The responding party requested a new representation vote under section 11(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, based on allegations of an anonymous threat.

The applicant sought to dismiss these allegations for lack of particulars.

The Board deferred the dismissal request to the hearing panel, noting that failure to provide particulars of the alleged threat prior to the hearing could result in the Board declining to permit evidence on the matter.

United Steelworkers of America v. Premdor Inc., 2000 CanLII 10098

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

OLRB0 cases1999–2022