H. Peacock

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.

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

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Progress Childcare (Scarborough) Inc., 2000 CanLII 7305

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote by employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of Ambulance Consulting Services Inc. in London, Ontario.

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 bargaining unit appropriate.

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

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Ambulance Consulting Services Inc., 2000 CanLII 9160

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

Board reconsiders decision and orders ballot box unsealed after finding sufficient union membership support.

The Board reconsidered its previous decision ordering a representation vote with a sealed ballot box.

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, disputing the applicant's estimate of employees in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board found the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant established sufficient membership support.

The Board directed that the ballot box not be sealed, except for previously segregated ballots.

Office & Professional Employees’ International Union v. College of Nurses, 2000 CanLII 12990

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.

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

Previously set meeting and hearing dates were cancelled.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Nipissing Area Joint Hospitals Laundry Inc., 2000 CanLII 9067

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 16, 2000

Request to reconsider decision not to seal ballot box in termination application dismissed.

The responding party union requested reconsideration of the Board's decision not to seal the ballot box in a representation vote for a termination application.

The union argued the application was untimely.

The Board dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no reason to change its original decision.

Roy Fillmore v. United Steelworkers of America and its Local 9042, 2000 CanLII 12867

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 15, 2000

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

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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

Based on the application material, the Board found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the laboratory technicians of the responding party.

Teamsters Local Union 938 v. Lakeport Brewing Corporation, 2000 CanLII 6254

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 15, 2000

Representation vote ordered in certification application with ballot box sealed due to bargaining unit dispute.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the College of Nurses.

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 and ordered a representation vote.

Due to the dispute over the appropriate bargaining unit, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed and any ballots cast by individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

Office & Professional Employees’ International Union v. College of Nurses, 2000 CanLII 9206

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 14, 2000

Representation vote directed in application to terminate bargaining rights despite union's timeliness objection.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The responding party union argued the application was untimely based on the execution date of the collective agreement.

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

The Board directed a representation vote and declined the union's request to seal the ballot box pending a final determination on timeliness.

Roy Fillmore v. United Steelworkers of America and its Local 9042, 2000 CanLII 2159

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardFeb 3, 2000

Request for reconsideration of decision ordering sealed representation vote on narrower bargaining unit denied.

The employer requested reconsideration of a Board decision ordering a sealed representation vote on a narrower bargaining unit than the one proposed by the employer.

The employer argued this departed from usual practice and prejudiced its right to challenge the proposed unit.

The Board denied the request, finding no prejudice as the appropriateness of the bargaining unit remained in dispute and the employer would have a full opportunity to make submissions.

The dissenting member would have granted the request and postponed consideration pending the outcome of a related file.

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 880 v. 629619 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. First Choice Haircutters, 2000 CanLII 13053

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 31, 2000

Representation vote ordered for single-location bargaining unit with ballot box sealed pending related application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at one location of the responding party's hair salon business.

The responding party argued that the only appropriate bargaining unit would encompass all seven of its locations, as it had in a previous application by the same union for a different location.

The responding party requested that the Board postpone consideration of this application pending the outcome of the previous application.

The Board declined to postpone, finding that the employees' interest in an expeditious vote outweighed the disruption of a further vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote for the single-location voting constituency, with the ballot box to be sealed pending the determination of the appropriate bargaining unit in the related file.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that the application should have been postponed or the vote held on the broader voting constituency.

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers and Helpers, Local No. 880 v. 629619 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. First Choice Haircutters, 2000 CanLII 4166

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 31, 2000

Board directed parties to provide submissions on the timeliness of a termination of bargaining rights application.

The applicant applied for a declaration terminating the union's bargaining rights.

The union contended the application was untimely under section 67(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, because a conciliation officer had been appointed and the collective agreement had expired.

The Board directed the applicant and the employer to provide submissions in response to the union's position on timeliness.

Jill Gibson v. United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175-633, 2000 CanLII 10884

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 28, 2000

Representation vote ordered for proposed bargaining unit in union certification application.

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 it established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to obtain a representation vote.

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

Service Employees International Union Local 478 v. Para-Med Health Services, 2000 CanLII 8355

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Rundle

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 28, 2000

Representation vote directed in application for certification of bookstore employees.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party's bookstores in Toronto and Mississauga.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

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

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2000 CanLII 11094

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote directed in application for termination of bargaining rights.

The applicant applied 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 and that not less than forty per cent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Michael T. Losier v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 195, 2000 CanLII 9641

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote directed in application for certification of hotel employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's hotel.

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 of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and established the voting constituency, with provisions for segregating ballots of disputed individuals.

Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75 v. Legacy Hotels c.o.b. Delta Toronto East, 2000 CanLII 6790

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Board directs representation vote in certification application despite employer's section 8.1 notice and procedural objections.

The applicant 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 to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency, with disputed quality control lab employees casting segregated ballots.

The responding party's claim that the application was a nullity due to a procedural defect was deferred to a post-vote hearing.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 175 v. W.T. Lynch Foods Limited, 2000 CanLII 10527

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote directed in certification application despite dispute over bargaining unit composition.

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 applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

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

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Progress Child Care Scarborough Inc., 2000 CanLII 8556

Louise Limoges

1 case2000–2000

Julie O’Donnell

16 cases2000–2022

Jeanette Schepp

1 case2000–2000

Cathy Braker

12 cases2000–2013

Bruce Hart

1 case2000–2000

Brando Paris

20 cases1985–2001

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 21, 2000

Brian McLean

OLRB0 cases1998–2026

Hearing adjourned to allow employees challenging representation vote to receive notice and respond.

The applicant union applied for certification.

At the commencement of the hearing, the responding employer requested an adjournment because certain employees had written to the Board requesting the representation vote be overturned under s. 11(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but had not received notice of the hearing.

The union objected on the basis that the employees' submissions were untimely and not delivered to the other parties.

The Board granted the adjournment, finding that regardless of the merit of the union's arguments, the employees should be given an opportunity to respond.

United Steelworkers of America v. BOC Canada Limited, 2000 CanLII 11225

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown