J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardApr 10, 2001

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

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

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

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

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Mr. Furnace, A Division of Union Energy Inc., 2001 CanLII 18718

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Anthony Brown

Board amended the date of a previous decision ordering a representation vote to correct a typographical error.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision to correct a typographical error in a previous decision that ordered a representation vote.

The original decision was inadvertently dated April 11, 2001, and the Board amended the date to read April 9, 2001.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. Hastings County Local Housing Corporation, 2001 CanLII 11891

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Anthony Brown

Representation vote ordered in 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 proposed bargaining unit and the estimated number of employees, giving 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 warrant a representation vote.

The Board ordered a vote, with ballots of individuals in disputed positions to be segregated.

Industrial, Wood & Allied Workers of Canada (I.W.A. Canada) v. Strategic Communications Inc., 2001 CanLII 10511

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Anthony Brown

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

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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.

The Board directed a representation vote.

Because the responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and proposed a different bargaining unit, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Act, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed until further order or agreement.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Techform Products Limited, 2001 CanLII 19810

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Anthony Brown

OLRB orders representation vote and seals ballot box in university certification application.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent certain employees of Ryerson Polytechnic University.

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.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on April 11, 2001.

Due to a dispute over the inclusion of instructors and faculty members, and a section 8.1 notice from the responding party regarding the bargaining unit description and employee estimate, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed pending further order or agreement.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Ryerson Polytechnic University, 2001 CanLII 12230

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Anthony Brown

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

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The responding party 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 between the parties was not significant and directed a representation vote, with ballots for disputed positions to be segregated.

The 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 & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Van-Terior Outfitters – Div. of Times Electronics Corp. Ltd., 2001 CanLII 11567

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Brian McLean

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, requested to withdraw its application against The Corporation of The Town of Perth.

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

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Corporation of The Town of Perth, 2001 CanLII 5030

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Brian McLean

Representation vote directed in application for termination of bargaining rights.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board 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 Board found the application timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Deborah Luft et al v. Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75, 2001 CanLII 6687

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Brian McLean

Representation vote ordered in certification application despite employer's section 8.1 notice.

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 disputed ballots to be segregated.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues are resolved.

Teamsters International Union, Local 847, AFL-CIO-CLC v. ABC Group Exterior Systems Inc., 2001 CanLII 12879

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Brian McLean

Board directs representation vote for LINC instructors at York Catholic District School Board.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification to represent Language Instructors for New Comers to Canada (LINC) employed by the York Catholic District School Board.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union 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 taken.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. York Catholic District School Board, 2001 CanLII 20945

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Brian McLean

Representation vote ordered for proposed bargaining unit with segregated ballots for part-time 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 and that it established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency, with segregated ballots for employees working not more than 24 hours per week, pending resolution of their inclusion in the bargaining unit.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Nefab Inc., 2001 CanLII 16655

R. R. Montague

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 22, 2001

Union permitted to amend unfair labour practice application; employer's motion to dismiss for no prima facie case denied.

The union filed an unfair labour practice application against the employer.

The employer brought a motion to dismiss the application for failing to make out a prima facie case, arguing in part that a trade union is not a 'person' under certain sections of the Act.

The union subsequently sought to amend its application to add the affected employee as an applicant and to include new factual allegations.

The Board granted the union's request to amend the pleadings, finding the new facts arguably relevant and the addition of the employee necessary to address the employer's statutory argument.

The Board then dismissed the employer's motion to dismiss, finding that the amended application established a prima facie case.

Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 and Vipool Sukhram v. Toronto Transit Commission, 2000 CanLII 7076

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Anthony Brown

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJan 19, 2001

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

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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

Although the responding party disputed the bargaining unit description and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, it agreed that the ballots should be counted.

The majority of the Board directed a representation vote.

The dissenting member argued that no vote should take place until the section 8.1 issues were resolved at a hearing, or alternatively, that the ballot box should be sealed.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 527 v. XL Wood Products, 2000 CanLII 2212

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote displacing the incumbent union.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification for a bargaining unit of part-time employees at Sault Area Hospitals.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and issued a certificate to the applicant.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Sault Area Hospitals, 2000 CanLII 5990

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Bram Herlich

OLRB0 cases1990–2026

Representation vote directed in certification application after employer failed to file a timely response.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The responding party employer failed to file a response within the stipulated time, though it requested an extension which the Board denied.

Finding that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent in the proposed bargaining unit, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Northern Ontario Joint Council of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union District Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Smooth Rock Falls Co-Operative, 2000 CanLII 5484

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Displacement applications for certification dismissed after applicant union failed to win representation votes.

The applicant union filed displacement applications for certification for part-time and full-time office and clerical employees at St. Joseph's Care Group.

Representation votes were held, but the applicant failed to secure more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the applications and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for these bargaining units.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. St. Joseph’s Care Group, 2000 CanLII 8276

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Displacement application for certification granted following successful representation vote.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

Following a representation vote in which more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. St. Joseph’s General Hospital Sister Margaret Smith Centre, 2000 CanLII 7443

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Displacement application for certification granted following successful representation vote.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party hospital.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with the agreement of the parties on the bargaining unit description, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found the unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Wilson Memorial General Hospital, 2000 CanLII 8131

R. R. Montague

Patrick Kelly

J. A. Ronson