H. Peacock

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 14, 2000

Board directed responding party to produce requested documents and particulars or provide reasons for refusal.

The applicant union requested that the responding party municipality produce certain documents and provide particulars.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding party to produce the requested documents and particulars it was prepared to provide by July 21, 2000, and to advise the Board and the applicant of any items withheld and the reasons for doing so.

Any remaining disputes regarding production or particulars were to be addressed at the upcoming hearing.

Teamsters Local Union No. 880 v. The Corporation of the Town of Essex, 2000 CanLII 17178

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Board orders representation vote in application to terminate union's bargaining rights, deferring dismissal request.

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 Board found the application timely and that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The union sought dismissal without a vote under subsection 63(16), but the Board deferred that determination to a post-vote hearing.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held.

Hugh Monahan v. Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers, 2000 CanLII 5047

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Application for certification withdrawn by leave of the Board.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and cancelled any previously set meeting and hearing dates.

The responding party was directed to post copies of the decision.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Trent Valley Lodge Ltd., 2000 CanLII 13038

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

Representation vote directed in certification application after employer failed to file a response.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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

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 per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with voters asked to choose between the applicant and the incumbent union, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 3054.

Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada v. Ziegler Lumber Limited, 2000 CanLII 6197

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

OLRB0 cases2000–2001

Union certification application dismissed under s. 8.1(5)[7] of the Labour Relations Act without a bar.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a bottom-line decision dismissing the application under paragraph 8.1(5)[7] of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, with reasons to follow.

The Board noted there is no bar against a further application for certification by the applicant.

Northern Ontario Joint Council of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union District Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Massey Wholesale Inc., 2000 CanLII 3953

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 12, 2000

Board directs applicant to file submissions in response to correspondence.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board received correspondence and a petition following its June 14, 2000 decision.

The Board directed the applicant to make any submissions in response to the correspondence and file them by July 19, 2000.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1883, 2000 CanLII 13119

J. A. Rundle

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 11, 2000

Union application withdrawn by leave of the Board.

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

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

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 17-0 v. Stepan Canada Inc., 2000 CanLII 7617

J. A. Rundle

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 10, 2000

Request for reconsideration granted to correct decision reflecting timely filing of response.

The responding party requested a reconsideration of the Board's July 7, 2000 decision, arguing it had filed a timely response to the application for certification.

The Board reviewed the matter, confirmed the response was filed within the time stipulated by Rule 69, and corrected its previous decision by deleting paragraph 3.

The Board directed the responding party to post copies of the corrected decision.

IWA - Canada v. Mattawa and District Association of Community Living, 2000 CanLII 12369

J. A. Rundle

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 10, 2000

Board directs representation vote for decertification but orders ballot box sealed pending hearing on objections.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found the application timely as no collective agreement had been made since certification.

Finding that at least forty percent of the employees expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union, the Board directed a representation vote.

Due to objections raised by the responding party under subsection 63(16) of the Act, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed until further order or agreement of the parties.

Larry Antonyshyn v. U.F.C.W., 2000 CanLII 8200

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 5, 2000

Board directed a representation vote on consent following a sale of business and intermingling of employees.

The applicant employer brought an application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding the sale of a business.

The parties agreed that a sale of a business had occurred, that the employer was a successor employer, and that there was an intermingling of employees resulting in a conflict between the bargaining rights of two union locals.

On consent, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed a representation vote to determine which of the two union locals would represent the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

Beachville Lime Limited v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, Local 3264, 2000 CanLII 13256

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

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, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Board found the bargaining unit appropriate.

A certificate was ordered to issue to the applicant.

Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183 v. SMS Modern Building Cleaning Services Inc., 2000 CanLII 7237

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote ordered for proposed bargaining unit; employer's request to seal ballot box denied.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Valley Manor Inc. The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

Based on the membership evidence, the Board determined 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.

Although the employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act disagreeing with the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the unit, the Board found that the forty percent threshold was met regardless of the estimate used, and declined to seal the ballot box.

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

United Steelworkers of America v. Valley Manor Inc., 2000 CanLII 10152

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote ordered in certification application; ballots to be counted despite section 8.1 notice.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification to represent employees of The Corporation of the Township of Cardiff.

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

The Board ordered a representation vote.

Although the employer gave notice under section 8.1 disagreeing with the bargaining unit description and estimate, the Board directed that the ballots be counted because the employer agreed to it.

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

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. The Corporation of the Township of Cardiff, 2000 CanLII 12499

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Union certified as bargaining agent following successful representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees at the Sioux Lookout District Health Centre.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent 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 certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Sioux Lookout District Health Centre, 2000 CanLII 9573

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, The Valley and District Association for Community Living.

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

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Valley and District Association for Community Living, 2000 CanLII 1322

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Application adjourned sine die for up to one year 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 application would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc., 2000 CanLII 6513

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, Local 13571, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Commercial Aluminum (1993) Limited.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave for the application to be withdrawn.

United Steelworkers of America, Local 13571 v. Commercial Aluminum (1993) Limited, 2000 CanLII 10856

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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

David Edward Eales v. Deem Management Services Ltd. c.o.b. as Conestoga Lodge Retirement Centre, 2000 CanLII 4180

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock