H. Peacock

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 29, 2000

Board directed applicant to clarify bargaining unit description before processing termination application.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights under section 63(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board noted discrepancies in the bargaining unit descriptions provided by the applicant, the responding party union, and the intervenor employer.

The Board directed the applicant to confirm the specific bargaining unit and the estimated number of employees in that unit before it would consider the application further.

Kristin Barber v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175, 2000 CanLII 7445

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 29, 2000

Applications adjourned sine die for another year due to an ongoing court-ordered stay of proceedings.

The applicant requested that the Board proceed with its applications following a previous one-year adjournment sine die.

The responding parties objected, noting that an Ontario Court stay of proceedings had been extended to October 31, 2000.

The Board agreed that the applications could not be scheduled for hearing while the stay remained in effect.

To preserve the applicant's rights, the Board adjourned the applications sine die for another year, with leave to request a hearing once the stay is lifted or a further adjournment if the stay is extended.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Canadian Red Cross Society, 2000 CanLII 2244

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 25, 2000

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant union.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application via correspondence.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board acknowledged the correspondence and ordered the matter withdrawn.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Comcare Health Services, 2000 CanLII 1746

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Brian McLean

Employer's section 8.1 objection dismissed as union met 40% threshold even on employer's numbers.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The employer raised an objection under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, arguing that the union did not have the support of 40% of the employees in the proposed bargaining unit.

After receiving additional information, the Board determined that the employer's objection was not numerically relevant, as the union had the requisite support even if the employer's estimate of the bargaining unit size was correct.

The matter was referred to the Manager of Field Services for a regional certification meeting.

Communications, Energy & Paperworkers Union of Canada v. The Korea Times Ltd., 2000 CanLII 7967

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Brian McLean

Time to file response extended to October 10, 2000.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief procedural decision extending the deadline for the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636 to file its response to October 10, 2000.

Power Workers’ Union, CUPE Local 1000 - CLC v. Corporation of the County of Oxford, 2000 CanLII 8236

R. O. MacDowell

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Upcoming hearing days adjourned pending the Board's ruling on a motion to limit evidence.

During an ongoing hearing under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, the responding employer brought a motion to limit or eliminate further evidence proposed by the applicant union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the upcoming scheduled hearing days to allow the panel to consider and determine the employer's motion before requiring either party to proceed with its case.

United Steelworkers of America, Local 1005 v. Stelco Inc. (Hilton Works), 2000 CanLII 6714

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Declaration granted confirming applicant union acquired predecessor's rights via merger or transfer of jurisdiction.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor union by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the declaration.

Service Employees International Union, Local 204 v. Service Employees International Union, Local 478, 2000 CanLII 9095

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Brian McLean

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The Ontario Nurses' Association filed an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board against the Salvation Army Grace Health Services and Salvation Army Grace Hospital, Ottawa.

The application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

Ontario Nurses’ Association v. Salvation Army Grace Health Services, 2000 CanLII 5938

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Brian McLean

Time for responding party to file a response extended to October 5, 2000.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a procedural decision extending the deadline for the responding party to file its response to the application to October 5, 2000.

Local 636 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. The Hydro Electric Commission of the City of Ottawa, 2000 CanLII 9622

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Brian McLean

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 20, 2000

Representation vote ordered for proposed bargaining unit in certification application.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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.

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

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 175 v. Hurley Corporation, 2000 CanLII 7137

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Brian McLean

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 20, 2000

Union application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

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

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

Hospitality & Service Trades Union, Local 261 v. Cotton Valley Enterprises Inc. o/a Roxboro Hotel (Ottawa), 2000 CanLII 10081

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

Brian McLean

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 20, 2000

Representation vote ordered in union certification application despite employer's dispute over bargaining unit size.

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 applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote and directed that a vote be taken.

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

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Color Pak, A Division of Atlantic Packaging, 2000 CanLII 3059

Marilyn Silverman

OLRB0 cases2000–2001

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 15, 2000

Certificate amended to correct the responding party's corporate name.

The applicant requested an amendment to the certificate to correct the responding party's name.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and ordered that the certificate be amended by inserting the word 'Ontario' after '1278655'.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. 1278655 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Carleton Place Manor, 2000 CanLII 10506

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 12, 2000

Christopher J. Albertyn

OLRB0 cases1998–2025

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

Barbara Graham v. Monarch Marking Systems Canada Ltd., 2000 CanLII 1159

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 7, 2000

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

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4243 v. The Peterborough Native Friendship Center, 2000 CanLII 6049

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 7, 2000

Board deferred union's request for an interim certificate to the panel hearing the scheduled certification application.

The applicant union requested an interim certificate pursuant to Section 9(2) of the Act in an application for certification.

The responding party opposed the request.

Given that a hearing was already scheduled for later in the month to consider remaining status and bargaining unit issues, the Board deferred the issue of the interim certificate to the panel hearing the matter.

Communications Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local 87-M Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild v. Sing Tao Newspapers (Canada 1988) Limited, 2000 CanLII 11976

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 7, 2000

Application adjourned sine die for up to one year 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 matter will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees Union Local 75, 2000 CanLII 9487

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 6, 2000

Board requests submissions on timeliness of certification application given existing collective agreement.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of ambulance service employees.

The responding party and intervenor asserted that the employees were already covered by an existing collective agreement, making the application untimely.

The Board directed the applicant to provide submissions on why the application should not be dismissed as untimely, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

Ontario Public service Employees Union v. The Corporation of the County of Brant, 2000 CanLII 12598

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock