J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 2, 2001

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of 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 statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Conference Cup Ltd., 2001 CanLII 18590

Tim Hannigan

140 cases2000–2026

Richard Blair

131 cases1987–2020

Nick Milanovic

5 cases1999–2001

Mike Kearny

Mike Gallizzi

Michael Stokes

2 cases2001–2001

Leslie A. Leroux

3 cases2001–2005

Kevin Johnston

Gus Oliveira

3 cases2001–2001

Eileen Wesley

2 cases1996–2001

Diane Nichol

Cliff DeQuettville

Timothy W. Sargeant

OLRB0 cases1997–2001

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardMay 2, 2001

Board issues procedural orders for document production and particulars in consolidated certification and related employer applications.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board heard a consolidated application for certification and a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board issued procedural orders directing the responding employers to file a response and produce material documents regarding the section 1(4) application.

The Board also ordered the applicant union to provide full particulars of its position concerning the effect of recent Minutes of Settlement on the applications.

The matters were scheduled for continuation of hearing.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Hamilton Housing Corporation, 2001 CanLII 11019

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

OLRB orders representation vote for security guards without sealing ballot box despite employer's section 8.1 notice.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification to represent employees of Garda Security Group Inc. 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 Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant established sufficient membership support and ordered a representation vote without sealing the ballot box.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed.

United Steelworkers of America v. Garda Security Group Inc., 2001 CanLII 15093

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Board orders representation vote for Comfort Inn employees following union certification application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at a Comfort Inn in Pickering, Ontario.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the parties agreed on the appropriate bargaining unit.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

U.F.C.W. Local 333 v. Comfort Inn, 2001 CanLII 7985

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Request for extension of time to file response to certification application denied.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The responding party employer sought an extension of time until mid-May to file its response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, noting that subsection 8(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 contemplates representation votes being held within five days, which necessitates quick responses from responding parties.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Great Beginnings Child Centred Co-Operative, 2001 CanLII 3229

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

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

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and determined that the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate.

Although the responding party disputed the union's estimate of the number of employees and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the majority of the Board found the numerical difference insignificant and directed a representation vote without sealing the ballot box.

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

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Marks Lumber Limited, 2001 CanLII 10597

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Photocopied documents are insufficient evidence of employee wishes in an application to terminate bargaining rights.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights, accompanied by photocopied documents purporting to show the wishes of employees not to be represented by the responding union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that photocopied documents are not sufficient evidence for the purposes of section 63(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board ordered that the application would not be processed further until the original evidence was provided, failing which the application would be terminated.

Domenic Sampogna v. Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers, 2001 CanLII 7672

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Board directs submissions on timeliness of displacement certification application amid ongoing interest arbitration.

In a displacement application for certification, the intervenor claimed the application was untimely due to ongoing interest arbitration under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board directed the applicant and responding party to file submissions on the timeliness issue before deciding whether to hold a representation vote.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay Homes for the Aged, 2001 CanLII 13751

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote ordered for proposed bargaining unit of Participation House employees.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of Participation House, Waterloo Region.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers v. Participation House, Waterloo Region, 2001 CanLII 21050

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit of part-time employees after employer failed to respond.

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

The responding party did not file a response.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2001 CanLII 21051

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote directed in displacement application for union certification.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada (I.W.A. Canada) v. Royal Homes Limited, 2001 CanLII 16885

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Board directed parties to advise if they wish to proceed with adjourned application or face termination.

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

After multiple adjournments and a failure by the parties to respond to the Registrar's request for a status update, the Board directed the parties to advise whether they wished to proceed by a specified date, failing which the application would be terminated.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79 v. The Board of Governors of the Riverdale Hospital, 2001 CanLII 8077

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

OLRB0 cases1999–2022

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote by employees at the University of Windsor.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of refrigeration and compressor operators, stationary engineers, and helpers employed by the University of Windsor.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. University of Windsor, 2001 CanLII 21195

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board on consent of the parties.

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

Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

Peggy L. Flack v. AMK Metal Products, 2001 CanLII 19036

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

OLRB0 cases1999–2022

Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure more than 50% of representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and 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.

International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) v. ZAP Paintball Inc., 2001 CanLII 13618

Laura Trachuk

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Representation vote ordered in certification application; ballot box not sealed 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 Board found that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the numerical difference between the parties' estimates was not significant.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with disputed ballots to be segregated.

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

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. G.F.I. Control Systems Inc., 2001 CanLII 12477

Patrick Kelly

OLRB0 cases1999–2019

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Board directed applicant to file further submissions to establish trade union status and clarify vote discrepancies.

The applicant trade 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 by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The Board noted that it had not previously found the applicant to be a trade union and that the filed materials did not assist in making that determination.

Furthermore, the Board identified discrepancies in the evidence regarding the membership vote and the number of employees in the bargaining units.

The Board directed the applicant to file further submissions and materials to clarify these issues and establish its trade union status before making the requested declaration.

Service Employees International Union Local 528 v. Service Employees International Union Local 210, 2001 CanLII 5109

Patrick Kelly

OLRB0 cases1999–2019

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Board directed applicant to file further materials proving trade union status and adequate notice of merger vote.

The applicant trade 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 by reason of a merger.

The Board noted deficiencies in the application, including an unsigned Confirmation of Posting, lack of clarity regarding notice to bargaining unit members of the merger vote, and the absence of a prior Board finding that the applicant is a trade union.

The Board directed the employer to file a completed Confirmation of Posting and ordered the applicant to file further submissions and materials regarding notice and its trade union status.

Service Employees International Union Local 528 v. Service Employees International Union Local 639, 2001 CanLII 2729

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

OLRB0 cases1999–2022