Marilyn Silverman

The applicant filed a grievance against the responding party.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

The applicant union sought a common employer declaration and filed construction industry grievances against the responding parties.

The responding parties requested reconsideration of a prior Board order for production of documents, arguing it was too broad.

The Board declined to vary the production order but granted a confidentiality order, directing that pricing information could be redacted and documents must be used exclusively for the litigation.

The Board also established a procedure for the responding parties' motion to dismiss parts of the case on a prima facie basis.

The applicant brought a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board involving an Employment Standards Officer and the Ministry of Labour.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued a decision terminating the matter based on the settlement.

The applicant union filed submissions regarding the intervenor's position that the certification application was untimely.

The Board directed that the timeliness issue be determined at a hearing and ordered the ballot box sealed.

A separate hearing was scheduled to consider whether a court order prevented the Board from counting the ballots.

The employer appealed a decision of an employment standards officer.

On the scheduled hearing date, the responding employee did not appear, as the Board was advised she was in the hospital.

The Board adjourned the matter to a later date.

The applicant union in an unfair labour practice complaint sought production of video recordings taken by the employer's security firm on a picket line during a legal strike, as well as documentation of the contractual relationship between the employer and the security firm.

The Board ordered the security firm to provide copies of the videotapes, with the applicant to reimburse the cost of the blank tapes.

The Board further directed the employer and security firm to bring all relevant contracts, reports, and correspondence regarding the surveillance to the next hearing date, where any remaining production disputes would be determined.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees to determine whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor.

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

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 of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

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

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support and ordered a representation vote.

The intervenor objected, citing a Superior Court injunction against individuals formerly associated with the intervenor, and argued the application was untimely under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board directed that the vote proceed but ordered the ballot box sealed pending a hearing on the intervenor's objections.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application via correspondence.

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

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and an affiliated bargaining agent.

Based on the membership evidence, the Board determined that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant sought to withdraw its application against the responding party.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties dated March 13, 2000, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

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

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

The Board ordered a representation vote.

However, because the intervenor raised an issue regarding a Superior Court injunction against individuals associated with the applicant, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing on whether the injunction affects the Board's process.

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

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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

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

The responding party failed to file a response.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant submitted a letter to the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding its application.

Having regard to the correspondence, the Board ordered the matter terminated.

The applicant employer sought to suspend an inspector's order requiring workers exposed to a fall hazard of more than 3 metres to wear a full body harness system.

The applicant argued its existing fall arrest system met regulatory requirements.

The Ministry of Labour opposed the suspension, noting that no fall arrest system was in place when the order was issued.

The Board declined to suspend the order, finding that doing so would pose a significant danger to worker safety.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance referral sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the application will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, requesting a determination without a hearing.

The Board noted a discrepancy between the applicant's name and the name on the collective agreement provided.

Consequently, the Board declined to issue a default decision and set the matter down for a hearing to address the issue.