Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.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.
Representation vote ordered in union's application for certification of car rental employees.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of National Car Rental (Canada) Inc. at a specific Toronto location.
The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, based on a previous Registrar's certificate.
Having found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the agreed-upon bargaining unit were members of the union, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.
Representation vote directed in displacement application for certification.
The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees of the responding party who were currently represented by the intervenor.
The Board confirmed the applicant's status as a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
Finding that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of at least forty percent of the proposed bargaining unit, the Board directed that a representation vote be held.
Eligible employees will vote on whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor.
Application for certification dismissed after union failed to win majority in representation vote.
The applicant union filed an application for certification.
A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.
As no statement of desire to have an oral hearing was filed, the Board dismissed the application.
The Board directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Act regarding the effect on any subsequent application filed within one year.
Union's bargaining rights terminated after it advised the Board it no longer wished to represent employees.
The applicant sought a declaration under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.
The union advised the Board in writing that it no longer wished to represent the employees in the bargaining unit.
Pursuant to section 63(17) of the Act, the Board issued a declaration that the union no longer represents the employees of Steeves and Rozema Enterprises Ltd.
The applicant filed an application against the responding party union, with the employer intervening.
The application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.
Representation vote directed and ballots to be counted despite employer's section 8.1 notice.
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 majority of the Board found that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support to direct a representation vote and have the vote counted.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with segregated ballots for individuals whose positions were in dispute.
The dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.
Representation vote directed in union certification application after finding sufficient membership support.
The applicant 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.
Despite a dispute over the estimated number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit, the Board found sufficient membership support to direct a representation vote.
The vote was ordered for the proposed constituency, with eligible voters being those employed on the application filing date.
Representation vote directed in union certification application after employer failed to file a response.
The responding party employer failed to file a response within the stipulated time.
Based on the application and membership evidence, the Board found 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.
Board directs representation vote for transit employees following parties' Memorandum of Settlement.
The applicant union filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
Following a Memorandum of Settlement between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed a representation vote for employees of the Ajax/Pickering Transit Authority to determine whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor union.
Representation vote directed in application for termination of bargaining rights.
The applicants 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 and that not less than forty per cent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.
The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Decertification application dismissed for failing to include written evidence of employee wishes.
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 application was dismissed because it was not accompanied by written evidence signed by the employees expressing a wish not to be represented by the trade union, as required by the Board's Rules.
The applicant, Guy Guerette, sought to withdraw his application against the responding party, U.A.W. Local 251.
Declaration of successor rights issued and bargaining unit amended following successful representation vote.
Following a representation vote in which the applicant union was successful, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a declaration under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board declared the applicant as the bargaining agent for paramedics employed by Almonte General Hospital, bound the hospital to the predecessor employer's collective agreement, and amended the bargaining unit description accordingly.
The applicant sought to withdraw her application against Providence Continuing Care Centre, Mental Health Services.
Board issued procedural directions for written submissions in a section 114(2) application.
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union filed an application under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 against St. Joseph's Health Care London.
As the parties were unable to settle the dispute, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued procedural directions requiring the parties to file written submissions detailing the material facts and reasons for their positions.
The Board noted it would review the submissions to determine whether to decide the matter based on the written materials or to hold a hearing.
Application withdrawn on agreement of the parties.
The applicant union filed an application against the responding party employer.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.
Board denied union's request for expedited hearing of unfair labour practice complaint regarding vacation scheduling.
The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding party company retaliated against it for referring a dispute to arbitration by restricting employees' ability to take vacation prior to or during a statutory holiday week.
The union requested an expedited hearing because the company refused to clarify its position on future statutory holidays, including Thanksgiving.
The Board declined the request for an expedited hearing, noting that the employees would not lose their actual vacation entitlement and any harm could be remedied in the normal course.
The Board directed a Labour Relations Officer to consult with the parties.