J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Anthony Brown

OLRB0 cases2000–2001

Union certification application dismissed under s. 8.1(5)[7] of the Labour Relations Act without a bar.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a bottom-line decision dismissing the application under paragraph 8.1(5)[7] of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, with reasons to follow.

The Board noted there is no bar against a further application for certification by the applicant.

Northern Ontario Joint Council of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union District Council of the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Massey Wholesale Inc., 2000 CanLII 3953

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

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

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The responding party employer failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with voters asked to choose between the applicant and the incumbent union, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 3054.

Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada v. Ziegler Lumber Limited, 2000 CanLII 6197

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Application for certification withdrawn by leave of the Board.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and cancelled any previously set meeting and hearing dates.

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

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Trent Valley Lodge Ltd., 2000 CanLII 13038

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Caroline Rowan

Board orders representation vote in application to terminate union's bargaining rights, deferring dismissal request.

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

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

The union sought dismissal without a vote under subsection 63(16), but the Board deferred that determination to a post-vote hearing.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held.

Hugh Monahan v. Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers, 2000 CanLII 5047

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Caroline Rowan

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party employer 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, with disputed ballots to be segregated.

The dissenting Board member would have sealed the ballot box until the section 8.1 issues were resolved at a hearing.

United Steelworkers of America v. Rentokil Initial Canada Limited and/or Initial Security Services Ltd., 2000 CanLII 5502

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Anthony Brown

OLRB0 cases2000–2001

Union declared bargaining agent for employees at Jeanne Sauve Family Services.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declared the Ontario Public Service Employees Union as the bargaining agent for a specified unit of employees at Jeanne Sauve Family Services, following a lack of submissions from the responding parties.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. North Cochrane District Family Services, 2000 CanLII 11828

Stephen Raymond

OLRB0 cases2000–2026

J. A. Ronson

H. Peacock

Board directs applicant to file submissions in response to correspondence.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board received correspondence and a petition following its June 14, 2000 decision.

The Board directed the applicant to make any submissions in response to the correspondence and file them by July 19, 2000.

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1883, 2000 CanLII 13119

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Caroline Rowan

Unopposed application for a declaration of successor trade union rights granted.

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

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the application and issued the requested declaration.

Service Employees International Union, Local 204 v. Service Employees International Union, Local 663, 2000 CanLII 8767

J. A. Ronson

D. A. Patterson

Caroline Rowan

Board directs representation vote in application for certification after finding applicant is a trade union.

The applicant union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties on the appropriate bargaining unit, and finding that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Anchor Lamina Inc., 2000 CanLII 9572

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

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

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 to be held, with segregated ballots for individuals whose inclusion in the bargaining unit was disputed due to confidential capacity or managerial status.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. D. H. Howden A Division of Sodisco-Howden Group Inc., 2000 CanLII 4204

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

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

The applicant union applied for certification.

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

The Board found the union's proposed unit could be appropriate and that the numerical difference between the parties' estimates was not significant.

The Board ordered a representation vote, directing that ballots cast by individuals in disputed positions be segregated and not counted until further order or agreement.

International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 793 v. Hertz Equipment Rentals, 2000 CanLII 6392

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

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

The applicant trade union applied 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.

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and proposed a different bargaining unit.

The Board found the proposed unit could be appropriate and directed a representation vote, 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.

Service Employees International Union, Local 183 v. Rubidge Hall Retirement Residence, 2000 CanLII 9635

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Board directs representation vote in certification application and declines intervenor's request to seal ballot box.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least 40% of the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but did not dispute the union's estimate of the number of employees.

The Board directed a representation vote.

The intervenor union requested that the ballot box be sealed due to alleged unfair labour practices, but the Board declined, noting it had previously rejected similar requests in related displacement applications.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Burnbrae Gardens, 2000 CanLII 11257

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Board directs representation vote in displacement application for certification and declines to seal ballot box.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

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 directed a representation vote.

The intervenor requested that the ballot box be sealed due to alleged unfair labour practices, but the Board declined, noting it had previously rejected similar requests in related applications.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & Genera Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Versa-Care Place Tecumseh, 2000 CanLII 11263

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Gail Misra

OLRB0 cases1994–2025

Board directs representation vote in displacement application and declines intervenor's request to seal ballot box.

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

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 a representation vote.

The intervenor raised objections based on alleged unfair labour practices and requested that the ballot box be sealed.

The Board declined to seal the ballot box, noting that similar objections had been dismissed in other recent displacement applications involving the same unions.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. The Corporation of the County of Middlesex (Strathmere Lodge), 2000 CanLII 12099

Timothy W. Sargeant

OLRB0 cases1997–2001

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Board directed applicant union to file submissions on 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 because a conciliation officer had been appointed for the existing bargaining units and no 'No Board' report had been issued.

The Board noted that the application appeared untimely under section 67(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and directed the applicant to file written submissions showing why the application should not be dismissed.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Trent Valley Lodge Ltd., 2000 CanLII 13037

N. L. Jesin

70 cases1987–2001

Adrian Hill

3 cases1980–2000

R. R. Montague

Patrick Kelly

OLRB0 cases1999–2019

J. A. Ronson

Application withdrawn on agreement of the parties.

The applicant union filed a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board against the responding union.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board ordered the matter withdrawn.

Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. Hotel Employees, Restaurant Employees Union Local 75, 2000 CanLII 8685

Timothy W. Sargeant

OLRB0 cases1997–2001

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant, Brent Ditchburn, sought to withdraw his application against Q-Lube.

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

Brent Ditchburn v. Q-Lube, 2000 CanLII 1519

Timothy W. Sargeant

OLRB0 cases1997–2001

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson