Marilyn Silverman

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die of the application.

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

The applicant 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The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.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, The Corporation of the City of London, requested to withdraw its application against Greenway P.C.C. and the Ministry of Labour.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union and responding party 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 against the employer and the Ministry of Labour.

Having regard to the agreement reached by the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application terminated.

The applicant filed an application against Decks Plus and the Ministry of Labour.

Having regard to a settlement agreement reached between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application terminated.

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

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 Act.

The Board found that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and directed that a representation vote be taken, with the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the disputes.

In an application for certification, the employer requested a delay of the representation vote because its counsel would be unavailable to deal with the union's objections to the voters list due to the religious holiday of Yom Kippur.

The Board dismissed the request, finding no prejudice to the employer since all ballots would be individually sealed and segregated, allowing objections to be dealt with at or after the vote.

The applicant employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The employer and the respondent employee entered into Minutes of Settlement to disburse the funds held in trust by the Director.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the funds disbursed in accordance with the settlement and terminated the application.

The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees in the specified bargaining units.

The applicant filed an employment standards application against the employer and the Ministry of Labour.

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

The applicant filed an employment standards application against the responding parties.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties dated September 24, 2001, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

The applicant employer applied for a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The employer and the employee entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the disbursement of the trust funds in accordance with the settlement, paying $1,500 to the employee, returning $647.97 to the employer, and retaining $214.80 for the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The application was terminated.

The applicant union requested an order for the production of documents from the responding parties in relation to applications filed under sections 69/1(4) and 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding parties did not provide any submissions in response to the request.

The Board ordered the responding parties to produce the requested documentation regarding share ownership, assets, clients, employees, and business relationships.

The applicant requested an adjournment of a hearing scheduled for the following day because his wife was hospitalized and very ill.

The Ministry of Labour consented, but the applicant was unable to contact the responding party employee.

The Board granted the adjournment due to the circumstances and referred the matter to the Registrar for rescheduling.

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

Following a Memorandum of Settlement between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed a representation vote for employees of the Ajax/Pickering Transit Authority to determine whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor union.

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

The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

Consequently, the Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

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

The responding party employer did not participate, and a majority of employees voted in favour of the applicant.

The applicant subsequently requested to amend the employer's name on the application.

The Board granted the employer five days to provide submissions regarding the name change before issuing the certificate.

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

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and proposed a different unit.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency, with segregated ballots for disputed positions.