Marilyn Silverman

The applicant filed an application under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Registrar returned the application because it was improperly filed and directed the applicant to file a proper application within 10 working days.

The applicant failed to do so.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application.

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Based on the agreement of the parties regarding the appropriate bargaining unit and the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

The applicant union applied 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 a result, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on future applications for certification by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint and an application to direct the settlement of a first collective agreement by arbitration.

The Board scheduled the matters to be heard together.

Additionally, the Board directed the applicant to provide a complete application to counsel for one of the responding parties who had not received it, and granted that party an extension of time to file a response.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the responding party.

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

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board reviewed the pleadings and directed that the matter be referred to the Registrar to be scheduled for a hearing in the normal course.

A Labour Relations Officer was assigned to meet with the parties prior to the hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of dependent contractors of the responding party.

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.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

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

The applicant trade union sought leave to withdraw its application for certification and cancel a scheduled representation vote.

The responding party requested that the Board impose a one-year bar on future applications pursuant to section 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to impose the bar, noting that the responding party provided no reasons to justify it.

The application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union filed a certification application for a bargaining unit in Grimsby, but the employer's operations were actually in Concord.

The employer invoked section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The majority of the Board dismissed the application without prejudice to the union's right to re-file for the proper unit.

The dissenting Vice-Chair would have ordered a representation vote using the employer's proposed bargaining unit, noting that the clerical error did not prejudice either party.

The applicant trade union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for carpenters and carpenters' apprentices employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than 50 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 issued two certificates pursuant to section 160(1) of the Labour Relations Act.

One certificate was issued for the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector province-wide, and another for all other sectors in the specified geographic areas.

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's bargaining rights.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

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

The intervenor asserted existing bargaining rights for some employees, and the applicant amended its proposed bargaining unit to exclude them.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The majority of the Board found the numerical difference insignificant, determined the proposed unit could be appropriate, and ordered a representation vote without sealing the ballot box.

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

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP) filed unfair labour practice and sale of business/related employer applications.

The responding party, Patricia Region Senior Services Inc. (PRSSI), objected to the CEP's request to file additional particulars and brought a motion to dismiss the unfair labour practice complaint without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board allowed the CEP to add the requested particulars, finding no specific prejudice to PRSSI.

The Board also dismissed PRSSI's motion to dismiss, concluding that the facts alleged by the CEP could support an argument that a violation of the Labour Relations Act had occurred.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees at the responding party's facility.

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

The applicant brought an employment standards matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

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

The applicant filed a request for an appeal but failed to provide proof of payment as directed by the Board in a previous decision.

Consequently, the Board terminated the matter.

The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Board under section 115(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, asking whether the Minister had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The union requested the appointment, arguing the collective agreement had expired.

The employer objected, arguing the agreement had been extended for a fourth year because a gain sharing plan had been implemented in accordance with the agreement.

The Board found that the employer had unilaterally implemented a plan without developing it in co-operation with the union as required by the collective agreement.

Therefore, the condition to extend the agreement was not met, the agreement had expired, and the Minister had the authority to appoint a conciliation officer.

The applicant employer filed an appeal of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The initial application was not in the proper form and was terminated.

The applicant subsequently filed a proper form late, citing personal circumstances and illness, but provided no evidence of the required payment in trust.

The Board reconsidered its termination decision and granted the applicant 10 days to provide proof that the required payment was made within the time limit, noting that an extension would be required if payment was made late.