J. A. Ronson

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

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.

Teamsters Local Union 938 v. Phillip Powers Auto Transport Inc., 2001 CanLII 10996

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed in application for certification of detention centre employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of York Detention Centre Ltd. The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and established the voting constituency, while segregating ballots for individuals whose confidential capacity status is in dispute.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. York Detention Centre Ltd., 2001 CanLII 15412

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

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.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 175 v. National Car Rental (Canada) Inc., 2001 CanLII 20880

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

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.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Wexford Residence Inc., 2001 CanLII 18812

Timothy W. Sargeant

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.

Paul Barber v. Maintenance Construction Skilled Trades Council (MCSTC), 2001 CanLII 7246

Marilyn Silverman

OLRB0 cases2000–2001

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

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.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 129 v. Corporation of the City of Pickering, 2001 CanLII 8241

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

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.

Woollatt Employees v. Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 1059, 2001 CanLII 4249

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

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 Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Eric Van Schelven, Carlo Orrico v. Teamsters Local Union No. 419, 2001 CanLII 19076

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 24, 2001

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against Providence Continuing Care Centre, Mental Health Services.

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

Ms. Heather Doney v. Providence Continuing Care Centre, Mental Health Services, 2001 CanLII 6068

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 24, 2001

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.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. St. Joseph’s Health Care London, 2001 CanLII 14533

Timothy W. Sargeant

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 24, 2001

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant, Guy Guerette, sought to withdraw his application against the responding party, U.A.W. Local 251.

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

Guy Guerette v. U.A.W. Local 251, 2001 CanLII 18928

William LeMay

9 cases1998–2014

Mark Gallina

6 cases2000–2001

C. J. Abbass

37 cases1980–2001

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 13, 2001

Caroline Rowan

OLRB0 cases1999–2022

Union decertified after losing representation vote and withdrawing objections at hearing.

The applicant applied to decertify the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, the union withdrew its objections to the application at the hearing.

The Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

A. Gourley of CUPE Local 3566 Technical Unit v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), 2001 CanLII 2918

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 13, 2001

Representation vote ordered in application for certification; employer's section 8.1 objection dismissed.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The responding party's section 8.1 objection was dismissed because it agreed with the applicant's estimate of individuals in the proposed unit.

The Board ordered a representation vote for the proposed bargaining unit.

Teamsters Local Union No. 230 v. Sure-Way Metal Products Ltd., 2001 CanLII 13358

R. R. Montague

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

Board postpones consideration of subsequent certification application pending final decision on prior competing application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A previous application for certification had been filed by an intervenor union for the same employees, and a representation vote had been held but not finally determined.

The responding party and intervenor requested that the Board refuse to entertain or postpone the subsequent application under s. 111(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board ordered that consideration of the subsequent application be postponed until a final decision is issued on the prior application, as the outcome of the prior application could render the subsequent one untimely or otherwise affect it.

United Food and Commercial Workers’ International Union, Local 175 v. Arnprior Your Independent Grocer, 2001 CanLII 7831

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

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

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 matter will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

Teamsters Local Union 938 v. Ed Mirvish Enterprises Limited, 2001 CanLII 8143

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

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

The Christian Labour Association of Canada applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at York Central Hospital.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and proposed a different bargaining unit, giving 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, with ballots of individuals in disputed positions to be segregated.

Christian Labour Association of Canada v. York Central Hospital, 2001 CanLII 18919

R. R. Montague

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

Applications withdrawn on agreement of the parties.

The applicant union and the responding party, Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd., reached an agreement regarding the applications.

Having regard to this agreement, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the applications withdrawn.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada and its Local 333 v. Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd., 2001 CanLII 8141

Patrick Kelly

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 matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Algoma District Health Unit, 2001 CanLII 14900

R. R. Montague

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson