J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 27, 2001

H. Peacock

OLRB0 cases1987–2001

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

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 at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

Due to a dispute over the precise description of the bargaining unit, the Board directed a representation vote for a defined voting constituency, with the bargaining unit description dispute to be resolved later if necessary.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Hamilton Physiotherapy Clinic, 2001 CanLII 16095

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure majority support in representation vote.

The applicant union applied 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.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification and directed the parties to section 10 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding future applications.

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Norampac Inc., OCD Division, 2001 CanLII 3044

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against the responding hospital.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and ordered the application withdrawn.

Service Employees International Union, Local 220 v. Norfolk General Hospital, 2001 CanLII 12142

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote ordered in union certification application; majority declines to seal ballot box despite employer's section 8.1 notice.

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 majority of the Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support and ordered a representation vote, declining to seal the ballot box.

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

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Ontario Korean Businessmen’s Association, 2001 CanLII 9521

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote ordered and ballots to be counted despite employer's section 8.1 notice.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, disputing the union's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit.

The majority of the Board found the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and ordered a representation vote to be taken and counted.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed when an employer gives such notice.

IWA - Canada v. 2002034 Ontario Inc. c.o.b. as Chateau Cornwall Retirement Centre, 2001 CanLII 17587

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure majority in representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote directed by the Board, not more than 50% of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification and directed the parties to section 10 of the Labour Relations Act regarding any future applications.

Teamsters International Union, Local 847, AFL-C10-CLC v. Party Packagers, 2001 CanLII 8136

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote directed in union 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 established sufficient membership support for a representation vote and directed that a vote be taken.

The Board deferred the determination of whether certain individuals exercise managerial functions or are employed in a confidential capacity to a post-vote hearing.

IWA - Canada v. Innovative Converting Inc., 2001 CanLII 20441

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Multiple Hydro One corporate entities declared to be a single employer under the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant union brought an application under subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, seeking a declaration that multiple Hydro One corporate entities constitute a single employer.

Upon a review of the pleadings, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and declared the responding entities to be one employer for the purposes of the Act.

Society of Energy Professionals v. Hydro One Inc., 2001 CanLII 9569

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

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

The applicant trade 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 in its proposed bargaining unit to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with ballots cast by individuals in disputed 'Lead Hand' positions to be segregated.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Global Fasteners & Clamps (2001) Ltd., 2001 CanLII 13169

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montauge

OLRB0 cases2001–2001

J. A. Ronson

Representation vote directed in displacement application for union certification.

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

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees to determine whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor.

Hotel, Hospitality & Casino Workers Union v. Quality Inn Airport West, 2001 CanLII 11108

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Representation vote directed for proposed tag end unit of school board librarians.

The applicant trade union applied for certification of a tag end unit consisting of professional student services personnel employed as librarians by the responding school board.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with segregated ballots for any individuals whose inclusion in the unit is disputed.

Association of Professional Student Services Personnel v. The Halton Catholic District School Board, 2001 CanLII 12235

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application against the responding party union.

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

Rob. Landon v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union, 2001 CanLII 11081

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Board directs representation vote 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 responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Arlene Giroux v. Local 183 Service Employees International Union, 2001 CanLII 9166

T. W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Board directs representation vote in application for certification of security employees.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent a bargaining unit of security employees of the responding parties.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that it appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held among the eligible employees.

United Steelworkers of America v. Garda Security Group Inc. and Riscon Security Services Ltd., 2001 CanLII 17734

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJun 22, 2001

H. Peacock

OLRB0 cases1987–2001

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against the responding employer.

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

United Steelworkers of America v. Airboss of America Corp., 2001 CanLII 12664

Stephen Raymond

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRB0 cases1987–2001

Representation vote ordered in competing union certification applications for Coca-Cola Brampton facility employees.

The Board considered competing applications for certification by the CAW and UFCW, as well as a termination application and an unfair labour practice complaint regarding employees at Coca-Cola's Brampton facility.

Finding that both unions had demonstrated the appearance of at least 40% support in their proposed bargaining units, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine the employees' choice of bargaining agent.

The Board deferred determination of a section 8.1 issue raised by the employer regarding the bargaining unit size.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 2001 CanLII 16230

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Anthony Brown

Board schedules expedited hearing for employer's application alleging an unlawful strike by the union.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union and its officials authorized and encouraged an unlawful strike.

The Board outlined the statutory provisions prohibiting unlawful strikes during the term of a collective agreement and the potential remedies available to an employer.

Recognizing the need for expedition in unlawful strike situations, the Board scheduled an expedited hearing for the matter.

Lafarge Canada Inc. v. Teamsters Local Union 141, 2001 CanLII 20442

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Anthony Brown

Representation vote directed in certification application with segregated ballots for disputed locations.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party employer disagreed with the proposed bargaining unit description, arguing it should encompass all five of its locations in Middlesex County rather than just the two in London.

The employer also filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, which the Board found invalid as it disputed the size of the employer's proposed unit rather than the union's.

The Board directed a representation vote, ordering that ballots from the two London locations be segregated and counted separately from the other three locations.

Service Employees International Union Local 220 v. Canadian Deaf Blind Ruebella Association, 2001 CanLII 3402

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Anthony Brown