H. Peacock

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote directed in displacement application for certification of nursing home employees.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification for a bargaining unit of office and clerical employees at a nursing home, who were currently represented by the intervenor union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant was a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support.

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

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Central Park Lodges Inc., 2000 CanLII 9098

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant, Christian Labour Association of Canada, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Durham Region Attendant Care.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

Christian Labour Association of Canada v. Durham Region Attendant Care, 2000 CanLII 3041

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote ordered in displacement application for certification.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite forty percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, allowing eligible employees to choose between the applicant and the intervenor.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Versa-Care Limited, Hamilton (Full Time Unit), 2000 CanLII 8053

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote directed in displacement application for union certification.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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 among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Versa-Care Limited, Hamilton (Part Time Unit), 2000 CanLII 8017

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Union certified as bargaining agent following successful representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the union as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Carrol Health Care Inc., 2000 CanLII 2186

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Union certification granted following a 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, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Electronic Language Communications Ltd., 2000 CanLII 2175

Tim Harrington

Suzanne Ritzler

Steven Brookshaw

S. B. D. Wahl

154 cases1980–2001

Robert A. Atkinson

Rick Cecchin

Gord Adam

E. Dures

David Wright

188 cases1989–2025

Patrick Kelly

OLRB0 cases1999–2019

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Motion to set aside representation vote dismissed; alleged unfair labour practices insufficient to overwhelm voters' critical faculties.

Following a declaration of a sale of a business and an intermingling of employees, a representation vote was held between two competing unions, Local 3264 and Local 774.

Local 3264 won the vote.

Local 774 brought a motion to set aside the results, alleging unfair labour practices by Local 3264 and the employer, including threats, misleading campaign literature, and destruction of campaign materials.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the allegations, even if true, were not sufficient to overwhelm the critical faculties of the reasonable voter and did not warrant the extraordinary remedy of a second representation vote.

Beachville Lime Limited v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 3264, 2000 CanLII 7649

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent 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 agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

Christian Labour Association of Canada v. Durham Region Attendant Care Inc., 2000 CanLII 1875

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote by employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the Corporation of the Town of Rayside-Balfour.

The Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant union.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Corporation of the Town of Rayside-Balfour, 2000 CanLII 1764

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote directed in displacement certification application; ballot box sealed pending hearing on bargaining unit composition.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification for a part-time bargaining unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant to be a trade union and directed a representation vote.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's request to dismiss the application or seal the ballot box based on alleged unfair practices and constitutional breaches.

However, because the responding party objected to the exclusion of full-time employees and sought a single combined unit, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed and the matter listed for a hearing together with a related application for the full-time unit.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Sunnyside Home (Part Time), 2000 CanLII 7469

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure more than 50% of representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were 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 applications for certification by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Diversicare Canada Management Services Co., Inc. c.o.b. as Maple City Residence, 2000 CanLII 6986

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote directed in displacement application for certification of nursing home employees.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification seeking to represent a bargaining unit of nursing home employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency to determine whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Central Park Lodges Inc., 2000 CanLII 6359

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote directed in displacement certification application; ballot box sealed pending bargaining unit dispute resolution.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent full-time employees at the responding party's home.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support and directed a representation vote.

The intervenor union requested that the application be dismissed or the vote delayed due to alleged unfair practices and breaches of a court order and union constitution, which the Board rejected.

However, because the responding party objected to the exclusion of part-time employees from the proposed bargaining unit, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed and the matter listed for a hearing to determine the appropriate bargaining unit description.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Sunnyside Home (Full Time), 2000 CanLII 10103

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Board amends decision to clarify response deadline and defers dismissal request to post-vote hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board amended its decision dated December 7, 2000, pursuant to section 114(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, to clarify the deadline for the responding party to file a response.

The Board confirmed the deadline is two days after the application was delivered, which in this case is December 8, 2000.

The responding party's request to dismiss the application for non-delivery may be raised at a hearing after the vote.

IWA - Canada v. Corporation of the Town of Hawkesbury, 2000 CanLII 5995

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Board directs representation vote on termination of bargaining rights, with ballot box sealed pending hearing.

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 union argued the application was untimely, requested a bar on subsequent applications under section 111(2)(k), sought dismissal without a vote under section 63(16), and challenged the applicant's status as an employee.

Finding that at least 40% of employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union, the Board directed a representation vote.

The Board ordered the ballot box sealed pending a hearing to address the union's allegations.

Vicki Hollett v. Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union Local 75, 2000 CanLII 3498

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Board directs representation vote in application for union certification.

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.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

Local Union 636 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Richmond Hill Hydro Inc., 2000 CanLII 8075

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Request to extend representation vote date denied where application was properly served by facsimile.

The applicant union filed an application for certification, which was delivered to the responding party employer by facsimile on December 1, 2000.

The employer failed to file a response within the time stipulated by Rule 69 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, and the Board directed a representation vote.

The employer subsequently requested that the Board consider December 6, 2000 as the date of receipt and extend the date for the vote.

The Board declined the request, finding that the application was properly delivered on December 1, 2000, and refused to vary its decision directing the vote.

United Steelworkers of America v. The Sleep Factory and/or Majoli Furniture (1983) Limited, 2000 CanLII 2290

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

OLRB0 cases2000–2001

Board directs representation vote in displacement application for certification, denying intervenor's requests for delay.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed a representation vote.

The intervenor's requests to dismiss the application, delay the vote, or seal the ballot box based on alleged unfair practices and breaches of a court order and union constitution were denied.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. The Corporation of the County of Oxford, Woodingford Lodge, 2000 CanLII 7862

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan