J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 30, 2001

Board directs representation vote for agreed bargaining unit despite dispute over employee estimate.

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties agreed on the appropriate bargaining unit.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act, but agreed the ballots should be counted.

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

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Toronto Bagel – Canada Bread, 2001 CanLII 9113

R. R. Montague

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 30, 2001

Union certified as bargaining agent following successful representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees at GE Specialty Extrusions Incorporated.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent 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 certified the union and directed that a certificate issue.

United Brotherhood of Retail, Food, Industrial and Service Trades International Union v. GE Specialty Extrusions Incorporated, 2001 CanLII 6810

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

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.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the parties to section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding future applications.

Canadian National Federation of Independent Unions v. William Neilson Limited, 2001 CanLII 9399

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as majority of employees did not vote against union.

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

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

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the destruction of the ballots.

Ramcharan v. Teamsters Local #419, 2001 CanLII 6345

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote and agreement between the parties.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no outstanding issues in dispute between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a final decision without a hearing.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

Carpenters and Allied Workers Local 27, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Athletica, Inc., 2001 CanLII 7605

R. R. Montague

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

Union certification granted as objecting employee's allegations would not have changed the representation vote result.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, resulting in a majority of ballots cast in favour of the applicant.

An objecting employee alleged that some employees were told not to vote and that the single poll arrangement prevented others from voting.

The Board dismissed the objections, noting that even if the allegations were true, the applicant would still have obtained a majority.

The responding party abandoned its position regarding section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board issued a final decision without a hearing, finding the bargaining unit appropriate and directing that a certificate issue to the applicant.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Attendant Care Inc. o/a Tobias House of Toronto, 2001 CanLII 4541

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Application for certification withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application for certification via correspondence.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and permitted the application to be withdrawn with leave of the Board, directing the parties' attention to section 7(10) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding any future applications.

Industrial, Wood & Allied Workers of Canada (I.W.A. Canada) v. Strategic Communications Inc., 2001 CanLII 12557

R. R. Montague

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

Applications for religious exemption from union dues scheduled for hearing due to insufficient written materials.

The applicants, registered nurses and members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, applied for religious exemption from union membership and dues under section 52 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applications were uncontested by the responding trade union and employer.

However, the Board found the filed materials insufficient to determine whether the statutory requirements were met, as no collective agreement was filed and it was unclear if the impugned agreement was a first collective agreement.

The Board directed the Registrar to schedule the matters for a hearing.

Facey v. Ontario Nurses Association, 2001 CanLII 5518

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRB0 cases1987–2001

Caroline Rowan

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant, Service Employees International Union, Local 268, sought to withdraw its application against the responding parties.

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

Service Employees International Union, Local 268 v. Algoma District Services Administration Board, 2001 CanLII 11048

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote directed in union certification application with disputed ballots to be segregated.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations 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.

The Board directed a representation vote and ordered that ballots cast by individuals in disputed positions, including students and certain technical specialists, be segregated pending further order.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Amcan Micro Precision Die Casting Inc., 2001 CanLII 7811

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote directed in displacement application for certification.

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

Upon examining the application and membership evidence, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite forty percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken to allow eligible employees to choose between the applicant and the intervenor.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Kannampuzha Holdings Ltd. c.o.b. as Exeter Villa, 2001 CanLII 16408

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Applicant directed to file materials proving trade union status before successor rights declaration can issue.

The applicant 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.

Following successful representation votes, the Board noted that it had not previously found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act.

The Board directed the applicant to file materials in support of its claim that it is a trade union before making a final determination.

Service Employees International Union Local 528 v. Service Employees International Union Local 204, 2001 CanLII 3758

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge 1788, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Invar Manufacturing Ltd. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge 1788 v. Invar Manufacturing Ltd., 2001 CanLII 4856

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRB0 cases1987–2001

Union's application for certification withdrawn with leave following an unsuccessful representation vote.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification after a representation vote in which not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in its favour.

No statements of desire to make representations were filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and directed the parties' attention to section 7(10) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding future applications.

Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers (CUOE) v. AD Fire Protection Systems Inc., 2001 CanLII 5211

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote directed in union certification application despite employer's dispute over bargaining unit composition.

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

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 numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

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

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Township of Carlow/Mayo, 2001 CanLII 11381

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and permitted the application to be withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The responding party was directed to post copies of the decision for affected employees.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, 2001 CanLII 20528

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit of security services employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of Westco Security Services Corp. in Toronto.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and determined the appropriate bargaining unit based on the parties' agreement.

Finding that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union, the Board directed that a representation vote be held.

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Westco Security Services Corp., 2001 CanLII 10988

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Board directed applicant union to file submissions regarding the timeliness of its displacement certification application.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding party employer and the intervenor union asserted that the application was untimely under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the timeliness issue within two days.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Copper Terrace Nursing Home, 2001 CanLII 17440

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan