J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 17, 2001

Board orders production of contract subject to strict confidentiality and non-disclosure conditions.

The applicant union sought production of a contract referred to during the examination-in-chief of a witness.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the responding party to produce the document to the applicant's counsel, subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The responding party was permitted to obscure financial, proprietary, and sensitive business information not related to the witness's evidence, and the applicant's counsel was prohibited from copying or sharing the document with anyone, including the applicant union itself.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. RMH Teleservices International Inc., 2001 CanLII 4406

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 16, 2001

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit of hospital medical laboratory staff.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent medical laboratory technologists, technicians, and assistants at the responding hospital.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held and established the voting constituency, with provisions for segregated ballots for disputed positions.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Mount Sinai Hospital, 2001 CanLII 7680

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 16, 2001

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit of parking attendants at the theatre.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent parking attendants at the responding party's theatre.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate.

Having determined that the applicant established sufficient membership support, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

Teamsters Local Union 938 v. Princess of Wales Theatre, 2001 CanLII 7683

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 16, 2001

Representation vote directed in application for certification 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 proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

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

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local No. 880 v. Dresden Ready-Mix Ltd., 2001 CanLII 18749

Warren Smith

3 cases1998–2001

Stephen J. Shamie

12 cases1989–2020

Rolf Gerstenberger

1 case2001–2001

Roger Fulton

4 cases1993–2001

Robert Jones

13 cases1998–2020

Elizabeth M. Brown

7 cases1998–2013

Celia Harte

2 cases1997–2001

Brian Shell

Not Practising Law66 cases1981–2021

Amanda Hunter

17 cases1998–2021

R. O. MacDowell

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 13, 2001

Union's unfair labour practice complaint alleging bad faith bargaining by the employer dismissed.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding party employer breached its duty to bargain in good faith under section 17 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union contended that the bargaining process for the most recent collective agreement was tainted by bad faith and material misrepresentation.

Following a lengthy hearing, the majority of the Board found no breach of the Act and dismissed the complaint, with one Board Member dissenting.

The Board issued a bottom-line decision to allow the parties to proceed with their collective bargaining relationship, with reasons to follow.

United Steelworkers of America, Local 1005 v. Stelco Inc. (Hilton Works), 2001 CanLII 18293

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 12, 2001

Board directs representation vote in union certification application.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty per cent 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.

Hospitality & Service Trades Union, Local 261 v. 131 Cooper Street Limited o/a Aristocrat Hotel, 2001 CanLII 3996

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 11, 2001

Board clarified it considered membership cards older than six months in directing a representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board previously directed a representation vote and sealed the ballot box.

In this decision, the Board clarified that in determining whether 40% of the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union, it considered membership cards signed more than six months, and in some cases more than twelve months, prior to the application date.

The Board provided a breakdown of the card dates and scheduled a hearing to address outstanding issues, including the responding party's objection to the use of older membership cards.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., 2001 CanLII 4467

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Board issues consent order terminating union's bargaining rights following sale of business and intermingling.

The applicant hospital filed an application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration of a sale of business and termination of the union's bargaining rights due to intermingling.

The parties reached a settlement agreeing that a sale occurred, employees were intermingled, and a large disparity existed between union and non-union employees.

The Board issued a consent order declaring the applicant a successor employer and terminating the union's bargaining rights retroactive to the date of the sale.

Brant Community Healthcare System v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2001 CanLII 5048

R. R. Montague

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

Patrick Kelly

OLRB0 cases1999–2019

J. A. Ronson

Representation vote directed in union certification application.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found 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, with segregated ballots for individuals in disputed positions.

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (AMAPCEO), 2001 CanLII 14594

R. R. Montague

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Application for certification dismissed on agreement of the parties; representation vote ballots ordered destroyed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following an agreement between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application pursuant to section 8.1(5)7 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board ordered the destruction of the ballots cast in the representation vote and directed the responding party to post copies of the decision.

U.F.C.W. Local 333 v. Toula Dining (Toronto) Ltd., 2001 CanLII 18823

R. R. Montague

OLRB0 cases1986–2001

J. A. Ronson

Anthony Brown

Representation vote directed in union certification application; ballot box sealed due to bargaining unit dispute.

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

The Board found that the union filed sufficient membership evidence to warrant a representation vote.

A vote was directed for the proposed bargaining unit, with a direction to segregate ballots for disputed positions (sales staff, students, and quality control staff).

Due to a dispute over the bargaining unit description and the number of employees, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed pending further agreement or order.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 175 v. (Exxon) Mobil Chemical Canada Ltd., 2001 CanLII 18993

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote and resolution of outstanding issues.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees at Car Canada Corporation.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, the parties resolved all outstanding issues.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Car Canada Corporation, 2001 CanLII 17189

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Unopposed application for a declaration of successor union rights granted.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor, Service Employees International Union, Local 204, by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The responding parties initially filed objections but subsequently withdrew them, leaving the application unopposed.

The Board granted the application and issued the requested declaration.

Service Employees International Union, Local 528 v. Service Employees International Union, Local 204, 2001 CanLII 3068

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Proceeding terminated following an agreement between the parties.

The applicant union and responding employer reached an agreement dated July 4, 2001.

Having regard to this agreement, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the proceeding terminated.

International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95 v. Nel-Tekk Industrial Specialties Inc., 2001 CanLII 4782

Patrick Kelly

OLRB0 cases1999–2019

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Application alleging unlawful reprisal withdrawn following a consent order incorporating the parties' settlement agreement.

The applicants filed an application under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging an unlawful reprisal by the responding party.

Following a meeting with a Labour Relations Officer, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to resolve the issues.

The responding party agreed not to place letters of counsel on the applicants' fact files and not to impose discipline arising from the events in question.

The Board issued a consent order incorporating the agreement and granted leave to withdraw the application.

Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union v. Ministry of Correctional Services, 2001 CanLII 2885

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 6, 2001

Representation vote ordered in certification application despite employer's section 8.1 notice disputing bargaining unit composition.

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

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

The majority of the Board directed a representation vote and ordered that ballots of individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

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

Teamsters Local Union 938 v. Holiday Inn Express Whitby / Oshawa, 2001 CanLII 11158

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 6, 2001

Board directs representation vote 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 terminating the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

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

Despite the union's assertion that the application should be dismissed without a vote under section 63(16), the Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with the ballot box not to be sealed, and deferred outstanding issues to a post-vote hearing.

Conte et al. v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (Cupe) and its’ Local Union No. 145, 2001 CanLII 2671

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 6, 2001

OPSEU declared bargaining agent for paramedics following successful representation vote.

Following a representation vote directed by the Board in which a majority of ballots were cast in favour of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the Board declared OPSEU as the bargaining agent for the paramedic employees of Health Trust Pre Hospital Services Inc. pursuant to section 69(6) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board also granted leave to withdraw a related application.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Health Trust Pre Hospital Services Inc., 2001 CanLII 12099

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan