J. A. Ronson

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit of registered and graduate nurses.

The applicant union filed an application for certification to represent registered and graduate nurses employed by the responding party.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and determined that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The responding party raised a potential conflict of interest issue regarding supervisory duties but did not propose an alternative bargaining unit.

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

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Leamington United Mennonite Home & Apartments, 2001 CanLII 5368

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed after union won representation vote.

The applicant filed an application to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in opposition to the union.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

Melvern Murray v. Teamsters Local Union 938, 2001 CanLII 8854

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Application for certification dismissed after union failed to secure majority in representation vote.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than 50 per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The Board cancelled previously set hearing dates and directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Act regarding potential bars to subsequent applications.

Brewery, General & Professional Workers Union v. York Condominium Corporation No. 76, 2001 CanLII 10619

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

OLRB0 cases1999–2022

Employer's request for reconsideration of a vote direction and disclosure of union cards deferred to hearing panel.

The responding party employer filed a request for reconsideration of the Board's decision directing a representation vote in a union certification application.

The employer also requested disclosure relating to the union cards.

The Board deferred the reconsideration request to the panel scheduled to hear the main application.

Regarding disclosure, the Board confirmed that the union cards complied with Rule 66 and explained that it had compared the names on the cards against the employer's list of employees in the proposed bargaining unit, leading to the decision to seal the ballot box pending determination of the employer's section 8.1 objection.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., 2001 CanLII 4206

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Application to terminate union bargaining rights dismissed after representation vote failed to reach majority opposition.

The applicants filed an application to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50 per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in opposition to the union.

No statements of desire to make representations were filed.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and cancelled previously set hearing dates.

Conte v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (Cupe), 2001 CanLII 19435

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Union certification granted for hospital security officers following successful representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of security officers employed by the responding party hospital.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue.

The Board also amended the style of cause to remove an incorrectly identified intervenor.

United Steelworker of America v. Grand River Hospital Corporation, 2001 CanLII 3160

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

The Board directed the responding party to file its response and note any continuing difficulties with the bargaining unit description.

The Board received a request for reconsideration regarding a bargaining unit description.

The Board noted that the revised bargaining unit described by the trade union appeared to be an exact parallel to the existing full-time unit.

The Board directed the Town to file its response in accordance with the July 20, 2001 direction, noting any continuing difficulties with the bargaining unit description in that response.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. The Corporation of the Town of Ajax, 2001 CanLII 3656

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, sought to withdraw its application against Weston Bakeries Limited.

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

United Steelworkers of America v. Weston Bakeries Limited (Kitchener, Ontario), 2001 CanLII 18330

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

Bram Herlich

OLRB0 cases1990–2001

Board declined to issue consent award incorporating settlement signed by employer but not applicant union.

The employer requested the Board to issue a decision incorporating a Memorandum of Agreement regarding damages for two employees, following a previous finding of unfair labour practices.

The union, which was the applicant in the original proceedings but had since been decertified, opposed the request and was not a party to the agreement.

The Board declined to issue a consent award, noting that the agreement was signed by only one party to the application, and remained seized with respect to issues of remedy.

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1703 v. McDonnell-Ronald Limousine Services Limited, 2001 CanLII 16439

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote with no remaining issues in dispute.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of office, clerical, and technical employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no remaining issues in dispute between the parties, the Board issued a final decision without a hearing.

A certificate was ordered to issue to the applicant.

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2001 CanLII 9146

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

In Private Practice1 case2001–2001

Consent order issued incorporating Minutes of Settlement for an unfair labour practice complaint.

The applicant union filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Prior to the hearing, the parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The settlement required the responding employer to pay the affected employee three days' pay without admission of wrongdoing, and requested the Board to incorporate the terms into a consent order.

The Board issued the requested consent order and directed that the decision become a permanent part of the employee's personnel record.

Universal Workers Union, Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 v. Harper Detroit Diesel Limited, 2001 CanLII 12053

Sukvindor Johl

1 case2001–2001

Stewart Saxe

10 cases1988–2001

Muneshwar Deopaul

Kim Birmingham

2 cases2001–2001

Catherine Gilbert

6 cases1995–2001

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Leave to withdraw complaints granted after individual applicant conceded union's authority to settle.

The employer and the union sought leave to withdraw two complaints on the basis that they had been resolved as part of a collective agreement settlement.

The individual applicant, Francis Naraine, initially opposed the withdrawal.

At the hearing, Naraine's representative conceded that the union had the authority to settle the complaint on his behalf.

The Board granted leave to withdraw the complaints, noting that if Naraine wished to pursue allegations that the union breached its duty of fair representation, he must file a separate complaint under section 96 of the Act.

Terex Bartell Limited v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), 2001 CanLII 19950

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Union certification granted for school board professional student services personnel following successful representation vote.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of professional student services personnel employed by the responding school board.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with all outstanding issues resolved between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a certificate to the applicant without a hearing.

Association of Professional Student Services Personnel v. The Halton Catholic District School Board, 2001 CanLII 19519

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote directed in certification application; section 8.1 notice dismissed by majority.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but did not dispute the applicant's estimate of employees or propose a different bargaining unit.

The majority of the Board dismissed the section 8.1 issue and directed a representation vote without sealing the ballot box.

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

Northern Ontario Joint Council of the Retail, Wholesale & Department Store Union v. 1468678 Ontario Limited, 2001 CanLII 15113

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote ordered in displacement application for certification; dissent would seal ballot box.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The responding party proposed a different bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support for a representation vote.

The Board directed a representation vote based on the voting constituency in the most recent collective agreement.

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

National Automobile, Aeropace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Muskoka Ambulance Service 299340/1339175 Ontario Limited, 2001 CanLII 14339

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Representation vote ordered in workplace despite union's surveillance concerns; ballot box not sealed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested an interim order regarding voting arrangements, expressing concern over workplace video surveillance.

The employer disputed the bargaining unit description and the number of employees, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board directed the vote to be held at the workplace, instructing the returning officer to ensure ballot secrecy.

A dissenting board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

United Steelworkers of America v. Cinram International Inc., 2001 CanLII 9597

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Union application withdrawn and Labour Relations Officer meeting cancelled.

The applicant trade union withdrew its application in Board File 0277-01-U. The Board cancelled the Labour Relations Officer's meeting scheduled for Board File 0278-01-U and noted a new date would be set.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 2548 v. Central Park Lodges (Windsor Place), 2001 CanLII 3882

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Board clarified proposed bargaining unit description and extended time for response.

The responding party requested clarification of the bargaining unit description proposed by the applicant union.

The applicant provided a letter clarifying the description to parallel the full-time unit provisions.

The Board noted the clarification and extended the time limit for the responding party to file its response.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. The Corporation of the Town of Ajax, 2001 CanLII 5505

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock