Marilyn Silverman

The applicant trade union filed a displacement 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 and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, giving employees the choice between the applicant and the incumbent union.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her duty of fair representation complaint against the union due to extreme delay.

The events giving rise to the complaint occurred over four years prior to the application.

The Board found that the applicant did not introduce new evidence or raise issues that would warrant reconsidering the previous decision.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The responding party 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 was not significant and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency.

The applicant employer applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act following the transfer of land ambulance services from three hospitals to the applicant.

The parties agreed there was a sale of part of a business and that a representation vote should be ordered.

The only issue in dispute was the appropriate bargaining unit description.

The employer and SEIU proposed a traditional service unit, while CUPE proposed an ambulance paramedic only unit.

The Board found that the broader service unit proposed by the employer was the more appropriate unit, as it preserved the status quo of the predecessor employers and aligned with the preference for broader-based bargaining structures.

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

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

As the parties agreed on the bargaining unit description and the applicant filed sufficient membership evidence, the Board directed that a representation vote be held.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicants filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union violated section 74 of the Act regarding job description reviews and reclassifications.

The union sought preliminary dismissal, arguing that it had already scheduled arbitration dates to address the disputes and that the Board lacked jurisdiction to grant the requested remedy of reclassification.

The Board noted that it could not grant the requested remedy but could order the union to proceed to arbitration if a breach occurred.

Since the union claimed to have already scheduled arbitration, the Board directed the applicants to advise within five days if they disputed this fact, failing which the application would be dismissed.

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

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

The applicant, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 586, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Black & McDonald Limited.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant requested to withdraw its referral to arbitration with the agreement of the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and cancelled all previously scheduled hearing dates.

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

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

The applicant filed an application alleging that her union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by settling her grievance without her consent.

The grievance related to a 15-day suspension imposed after the applicant took a trip to Africa despite being denied a leave of absence.

The union and employer requested that the application be dismissed for failing to make out a prima facie case.

The Board found that the union had met with the applicant, kept her informed, and made an informed decision to settle the matter.

The Board held that settling a grievance over an employee's objections does not, without more, constitute arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by conspiring with the employer to pay certain job classifications at a higher level for some members than others.

The responding union requested that the Board dismiss the matter without a hearing for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board considered only the applicant's submissions and found that, although not elaborate, the applicant pleaded enough to allow the matter to proceed.

The union's request was denied and the matter was referred to the Registrar.

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

Having regard to a prior Board decision and the agreement of the parties, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken to determine whether the employees wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor union.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding union submitted that the employment relations were federally regulated, providing a Canada Labour Relations Board certificate.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions disputing the jurisdictional issue within ten days, failing which the application would be deemed terminated.

The Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario (ETFO) applied for certification to represent Early Childhood Educators employed by the Lakehead District School Board.

Following a successful representation vote, the Board considered whether ETFO held trade union status under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that ETFO is a trade union based on its designation under the Education Act and its constitution and by-laws.

A certificate was issued to ETFO, and a competing application by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation was dismissed.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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