Kevin Whitaker

The applicants sought to withdraw their applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the applications were withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Board dismissed the application for certification and noted the potential application of the one-year bar under section 10(3) of the Act for future applications.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and noted the potential application of the one-year bar under section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act for any subsequent applications.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the parties' attention to the statutory bar for subsequent applications.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50 per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Board dismissed the application and directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Act regarding subsequent applications.

The applicant trade union applied for certification in the construction industry.

Following a representation vote, the parties agreed to dismiss the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application on consent and ordered a one-year bar on any new application for certification by the applicant or affected employees pursuant to section 111(2)(k) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant union sought an interim order under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act to place an employee subject to a work assignment dispute into its bargaining unit.

The applicant argued the employee was suffering financial loss and working under a probationary period, and alleged bad faith by the employer.

The respondents opposed the request, arguing the matter could be heard expeditiously and any loss could be addressed in damages.

The Board dismissed the request for interim relief and referred the matter to the Registrar to be scheduled as a consultation.

The applicant union in an Occupational Health and Safety Act reprisal application requested that its matter be heard together with an employer's application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found it appropriate to hear the matters together due to overlapping issues of fact and law, and scheduled both applications for a joint hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision amending paragraph 6 of its previous decision dated November 2, 2001.

The amendment directs the respondent employer to pay the applicant union the sum of $53,636.36 as a remedy.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding trade union and several correctional officers were engaging in an unlawful strike.

As the application involved allegations of ongoing or imminent unlawful strike activity, the Ontario Labour Relations Board scheduled an expedited hearing to address the matter and directed the parties to bring the decision to the attention of affected employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board cancelled the hearing dates set for November 7 and 13, 2001, having regard to the respondent's correspondence.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for determination under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board for determination under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

On the agreement of the parties, the Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act.

The respondent employer failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite receiving notice.

The Board proceeded in the employer's absence, heard evidence from the union's business representative, and found the employer in breach of the collective agreement.

The employer was ordered to pay $53,636.36 to the union.

The applicant union requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing dates and suggested it would agree to the imposition of a bar in one of the Board files.

The Board directed the responding party to file its response to the applicant's correspondence.

The applicant referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for determination under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Pursuant to Minutes of Settlement entered into by the parties, the matter was withdrawn.

The applicants requested that the consultation be reconvened to deal with the quantum of damages after the parties failed to settle the issue.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the parties to file written submissions, particulars, documents, and calculations regarding the quantum of damages, after which the Board would either determine the issue on the materials or reconvene the consultation.

The applicants alleged that the respondent union breached its duty of fair representation under section 75 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to enforce the referral to work provisions of various collective agreements.

Following a consultation, the Board found that the union failed to take effective steps to ensure employers honoured their obligations, which likely deprived the applicants of work opportunities.

The Board concluded that the union's conduct was arbitrary and breached section 75, remitting the matter to the parties to resolve outstanding issues.

The applicants sought reconsideration of a Board decision dated July 2, 1998, which dismissed their section 74 complaint.

The application for reconsideration was filed late, and the applicants provided no reason for the delay other than ignorance of their right to seek reconsideration.

The Board found the application untimely and noted it merely attempted to reargue issues already disposed of.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicants filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the respondent trade union, alleging it failed to provide sufficient information regarding a pension plan merger prior to a ratification vote and challenging the settlement of a grievance.

The Board dismissed the application for delay, noting it was filed 10 months after the ratification vote without explanation.

The Board found that permitting the application to proceed would be highly prejudicial to the union and the employer, who had continued to manage their collective bargaining relationship based on the ratified agreement.