H. Peacock

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Extension of time to file response granted.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file a response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the extension until December 8, 2000.

Tony Olivieri v. Ontario Public Services Employees Union, 2000 CanLII 4328

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Board orders representation vote in union's application for certification of library employees.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification to represent employees of the Brock Township Public Library System.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least 40% of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Disputes regarding the inclusion of certain positions in the bargaining unit were noted, and individuals in those positions were permitted to cast segregated ballots.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Brock Township Public Library, 2000 CanLII 7460

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed for municipal facilities employees following union certification application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification to represent employees in the Facilities Section of the Department of Parks, Recreation and Culture of the Town of Newmarket.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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 union members, the Board directed that a representation vote be held.

Brewery, General & Professional Workers’ Union v. The Corporation of the Town of Newmarket, 2000 CanLII 9358

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed; majority declined to seal ballot box despite employer's section 8.1 notice.

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

The Board found that the union met the 40% membership threshold required to direct a representation vote.

The employer filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, disagreeing with the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the bargaining unit.

The majority of the Board declined to seal the ballot box, determining that the 40% threshold was met regardless of which estimate was used.

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

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Smart Carte Ltd., 2000 CanLII 10993

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed in union certification application after employer failed to respond.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75 v. Gladstone Hotel, 2000 CanLII 9530

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure majority support in representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% of the ballots cast 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 by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Sonoco Flexible Packaging Canada Corporation, 2000 CanLII 6174

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Board directs representation vote for decertification but orders ballot box sealed pending employer interference allegations.

A group of employees applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

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.

However, due to the union's allegations that the application violated section 63(16) of the Act and was not brought by a proper individual, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed pending further order or agreement of the parties.

A group of Employees of Mibro Partners and Kimbrox Packaging Limited v. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Teamsters Local Union No. 230, 2000 CanLII 10637

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.

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

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 1190 v. Maple Leaf Meats Inc., 2000 CanLII 10404

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed in displacement application for certification.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees at The Village Health Care Centre, who were currently represented by the intervenor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with voters asked to choose between the applicant and the intervenor.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Central Park Lodges, c.o.b. The Village Health Care Centre, 2000 CanLII 3280

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Union decertified after majority of employees voted in opposition during representation vote.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

A representation vote was held, and more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in opposition to the union.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

Alvin Lutchmedial v. Union of Needletrades Industrial and Textile Employees AFL-C10-CLC, Local 717G, 2000 CanLII 3104

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

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

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

Service Employees International Union, Local 204 v. JAV Residences Ltd. c.o.b. as Tranquility Place, 2000 CanLII 2584

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

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

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local 343 v. Industrial Family (Hamilton) Credit Union Limited, 2000 CanLII 1729

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Construction Council of Ontario, requested to withdraw its application against the responding party, Montana Electric Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Construction Council of Ontario v. Montana Electric Inc., 2000 CanLII 1332

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Board directs representation vote for proposed bargaining unit upon finding sufficient union membership evidence.

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

The Board found the applicant to be 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 among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Lakeside Plastics Limited, 2000 CanLII 9413

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Representation vote ordered for proposed bargaining unit of Value Village employees in Whitby.

The applicant union filed an application for certification to represent employees of Value Village Stores Inc. in Whitby.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant to be 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.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Value Village Stores Inc., 2000 CanLII 7247

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed in certification application despite employer's section 8.1 notice disputing employee estimate.

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

The Board directed a representation vote.

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

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Cambridge Concrete Ltd., 2000 CanLII 6531

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed and ballot box sealed due to dispute over bargaining unit employee estimate.

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 but could not be absolutely certain that the union had the requisite 40 percent membership support.

Consequently, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken and that the ballot box be sealed pending further order or agreement of the parties.

Teamsters Local Union 938 v. Rushwood Truss Division of Millwork Building Supplies Ltd., 2000 CanLII 6207

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardNov 23, 2000

Union certified as bargaining agent following successful representation vote.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent 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 issued a final decision without a hearing.

The Board found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 772 v. Brookfield LePage Johnson Controls, 2000 CanLII 4472

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock