J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

OLRB0 cases1999–2022

Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit of healthcare workers at St. Joseph's Health Care.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification to represent certain employees of St. Joseph's Health Care, London.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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.

The Board directed a representation vote to be held on April 25, 2001, and ordered that any ballots cast by individuals whose inclusion in the bargaining unit is disputed be segregated.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. St. Joseph’s Health Care, London, 2001 CanLII 20135

R. R. Montague

Laura Trachuk

OLRB0 cases1993–2001

J. A. Ronson

Application adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.

The applicant union and responding university agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

York University Staff Association v. York University, 2001 CanLII 3937

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

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

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote, the applicant did not receive more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the destruction of the ballots after 30 days.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Wesway Inc., 2001 CanLII 17832

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

OLRB0 cases1999–2022

Board directs representation vote for proposed bargaining unit of employees.

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 of the union.

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

United Steelworkers of America v. 687335 Ontario Ltd., 2001 CanLII 12806

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 20, 2001

Board directed an expedited hearing to resolve preliminary issues regarding competing certification applications and existing bargaining rights.

Two unions, CAW and UFCW, filed competing applications for certification for employees at a newly opened Coca-Cola plant in Brampton.

UFCW and its Local 175 claimed existing bargaining rights based on collective agreements at other locations that were allegedly being downsized or closed, with employees transferring to Brampton.

The Board deferred directing a representation vote and instead ordered an expedited hearing to determine preliminary issues, including whether UFCW or Local 175 already held bargaining rights for the Brampton employees and how to handle the competing applications.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Coca-Cola Bottling Company, 2001 CanLII 4863

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Brian McLean

OLRB0 cases1998–2026

In Private Practice22 cases1988–2023

Union certified for Kingston bargaining unit but application dismissed for Belleville/Bancroft unit following representation votes.

The applicant union applied for certification for two bargaining units: Kingston and Belleville/Bancroft.

Following representation votes, the union failed to secure more than fifty per cent of the ballots in the Belleville/Bancroft unit, resulting in the dismissal of that portion of the application.

However, the union secured more than fifty per cent of the ballots in the Kingston unit.

The Board issued a certificate for the Kingston bargaining unit.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. All-Care Health Services Limited, 2001 CanLII 6327

Paul H. Meier

1 case2001–2001

Karen Borden

1 case2001–2001

Donald B. Jarvis

Andrew Lokan

12 cases1999–2016

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Sale of part of a business found where purchaser acquired training centre and retained predecessor's clients.

The applicant union alleged that a sale of part of a business occurred when Ontario Hydro sold the Glen Cross Conference and Training Centre to Goldman Hotels Inc. The purchaser argued that it merely bought idle assets and started a new business.

The Board found that there was substantial continuity of enterprise, evidenced by a two-year leaseback to Ontario Hydro and continued room bookings from former clients.

The Board also found substantial continuity in the bargaining unit work performed by the front-line staff.

The Board concluded that a sale of part of a business occurred under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act and declared that the collective agreement applied to the purchaser's operation.

Power Workers’ Union, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1000 v. The Goldman Group, Murray Goldman Real Estate Limited, Goldman Hotels Inc. and Ontario Hydro, 2001 CanLII 5945

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Applications withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union requested to withdraw multiple applications against the responding party employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications based on correspondence from the applicant's counsel.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada Local 87-M, Southern Ontario Newspaper Guild v. Toronto Star Newspaper Limited, 2001 CanLII 16028

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party employer disputed the union'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 numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the union had established sufficient membership support to direct a representation vote and have the vote counted.

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

Christian Labour Association of Canada v. Plaster Form Designs Inc., 2001 CanLII 8173

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 17, 2001

Brian McLean

OLRB0 cases1998–2026

Board corrects previous decision to direct parties to section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision correcting paragraph 5 of its previous decision dated April 5, 2001.

The Board revoked the original paragraph 5 and substituted it with a new paragraph directing the parties and employees to section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, regarding any future application for certification.

United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 787 v. Union Energy Limited c.o.b. as 21 Degrees Heating & Air Conditioning, 2001 CanLII 17276

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 12, 2001

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

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding employer disputed the union'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 the numerical difference was not significant and ordered a representation vote to be held and counted.

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

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Atlas Cold Storage Limited, 2001 CanLII 20103

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 12, 2001

Representation vote directed in union certification application despite employer's notice of disagreement regarding bargaining unit size.

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 majority of the Board found that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and directed a representation vote, with ballots of disputed part-time employees to be segregated.

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

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Corporation of the Town of Perth, 2001 CanLII 17917

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 12, 2001

Representation vote directed in 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 at the responding party's facility.

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 numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support to direct a representation vote and have it counted.

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

Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Atlas Cold Storage Limited, 2001 CanLII 13589

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Anthony Brown

Representation vote directed in displacement application for certification.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification.

The 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 of the applicant.

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

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Lakehead University (Part Time Unit), 2001 CanLII 21017

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Anthony Brown

Representation vote directed in displacement application for union certification.

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

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 applicant.

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

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Lakehead University (Full Time Unit), 2001 CanLII 21016

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Anthony Brown

Representation vote directed in timely application for termination of bargaining rights.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

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

Consequently, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

Anil Kumar v. C.A.W. # 252, 2001 CanLII 10435

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Anthony Brown

Representation vote ordered but ballot box sealed due to dispute over employer identity and timeliness.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support to order a representation vote.

However, the intervenor and responding party argued the application was untimely because the affected employees were already covered by an existing collective agreement between the intervenor and the County of Hastings, which they argued was the same employer.

Due to the dispute over the identity of the employer and the timeliness of the application, the Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending further order.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Hastings County Local Housing Corporation, 2001 CanLII 16613

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 10, 2001

Board directs representation vote in union's application for certification of food services employees.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party engaged in food services at Niagara College.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the proposed voting constituency, with segregated ballots for disputed positions.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Aramark Canada Limited, 2001 CanLII 19980

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown