Marilyn Silverman

The applicant union filed applications for certification and related employer declarations concerning two responding parties.

Following a representation vote, the ballots were segregated and sealed.

The parties subsequently agreed to count the ballots, which revealed majority support for the union among employees of Two Plus Seven Inc., but not Balmer Studios.

The Board granted an interim certificate for the employees of Two Plus Seven Inc., pending the continuation of the hearing on the related employer application.

The responding party employer requested reconsideration of a default decision finding it liable for a construction grievance.

The employer had failed to file a Request for Hearing and Notice of Intent to Defend (Form A-87) in time.

Applying the four factors from Weinmann Electric Ltd., the Board found that the employer provided no adequate explanation for the default.

The Board concluded that the employer's substantive defences could largely be addressed at the upcoming damages hearing, and dismissed the request for reconsideration.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

In its response, the union requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing because the applicant failed to plead facts or particulars.

The Board noted that the applicant had attached four handwritten pages of particulars to the application filed with the Board, but inadvertently failed to send them to the union.

To ensure procedural fairness, the Board directed that the handwritten notes be sent to the union and extended the time for the union to file a response.

The applicant filed an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement agreeing that a sale of a business occurred from two predecessor employers to the applicant, and that there was an intermingling of employees.

Based on the agreement, the Board declared that a sale of a business and intermingling had occurred, defined the appropriate bargaining unit, and ordered a representation vote to determine if the responding party union would represent the employees.

The applicant union filed a grievance referral and an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer and a rival union.

The responding union raised a preliminary objection, arguing the matter was essentially a jurisdictional dispute over work assignment that should be dealt with under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board agreed and deferred the applications pending the filing and disposition of a section 99 application.

The Board also addressed a request to add two individuals as responding parties, declining to add them at this time due to lack of service, but dismissing the responding union's objection to their addition.

The applicant employer and responding union entered into Minutes of Settlement regarding an application under section 69 and subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board declared that a sale of a business occurred from predecessor employers to the applicant, resulting in an intermingling of employees.

Based on the parties' agreement, the Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote to determine if the union would represent the employees of the successor employer.

The applicant sought to withdraw the employment standards application following an agreement reached between the parties.

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

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

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration, finding that the applicant had acquired the predecessor's rights.

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

Notice of the application was provided to the responding parties and posted on the employer's premises.

No statements in opposition were filed.

The Board granted the unopposed application and issued the requested declaration.

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 at least 40% of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed a representation vote to be held on October 30, 2000.

The Board also directed that ballots cast by office employees, whose inclusion in the bargaining unit is disputed, be segregated.

The applicant union sought certification to represent a bargaining unit of paramedical employees at the responding party hospital.

Following a representation vote in which more than fifty per cent 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 found the unit appropriate for collective bargaining.

The Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application against the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

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

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 the predecessor union by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

Notice was provided to the responding party employer and the predecessor union, and notices were posted in the workplace.

No statements were filed in opposition.

The Board granted the unopposed application and issued the requested declaration.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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

The Board ordered a representation vote, with disputed Quality Control positions to cast segregated ballots.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The applicant filed an application against the City of Toronto.

Based on the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

If neither party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the Thunder Bay Coalition Against Poverty.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent 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 granted certification and ordered a certificate to issue.

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 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.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent maintenance employees at the responding party's facility.

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 and ordered that ballots of individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

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 declaration.