Marilyn Silverman

The applicant employee 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to the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Board found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate.

The Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Board granted the request, extending the deadline to September 18, 2001.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A representation vote was held, with the majority voting against the responding union.

The union alleged that the evidence of employee wishes was improperly obtained under false pretences, and that there was an appearance of employer interference.

The employer argued that section 63(13) precludes consideration of challenges to the evidence of employee wishes, and that the union's allegations of employer interference did not establish a prima facie case.

The Board deferred both issues to the panel scheduled to hear the application.

The Board also declined the employer's request to add the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada as a party, finding it had no material interest in the application at this stage.

The applicant sought a review of an employment standards officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for wages and vacation pay.

The application was filed 57 days late.

The applicant requested an extension of time under section 68(4) of the Employment Standards Act, claiming she waited for the appeal papers after being verbally informed of the decision.

The Board found this explanation invalid for such a significant delay and noted the applicant did not act with diligence and expedition.

The request for an extension of time was denied.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty percent 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 of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The responding parties requested an extension of time to file their responses to the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to September 7, 2001, and reminded the responding parties of the requirement under the Board's Rules of Procedure to copy all documents and correspondence to all other parties.

The applicant union referred a grievance to arbitration under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging the employer violated the collective agreement by employing non-union members.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

Based on the union's evidence, the Board found the employer breached the agreement and ordered it to comply immediately.

The Board awarded the union $43,912.50 in damages for the breach, plus $749.00 for the filing fee.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning 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, but failed to provide a list of employees.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and directed that a representation vote be taken.

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 and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the applicant.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant filed an application to terminate bargaining rights under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board previously ordered a representation vote.

The responding union requested the application be dismissed for improper service.

The Board declined to change its earlier decision, noting the Certificate of Delivery attested to proper service and the union provided no particulars of the alleged non-compliance.

The Board held that the issue of compliance with the Rules could be raised at the hearing following the representation vote.

The applicant filed an application to terminate bargaining rights under section 63(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Certificate of Delivery indicated that the responding party and the employer would not be served until the date of the decision.

The Board noted that the applicant must deliver the application package to the other parties before filing it with the Board.

Consequently, the Board held it was unable to process the application until proper proof of service was provided.

The applicant union requested that its unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 be scheduled for hearing with three other related Board files involving the same parties.

The Board granted the request and referred the matter to the Registrar for scheduling.

The Board deferred ruling on the production requests, directing the responding party to include its submissions on the issue in its forthcoming response.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification.

The employer and intervenor argued the application was untimely based on the duration clause of the existing collective agreement.

The applicant contended the collective agreement was invalid because it had not been ratified by bargaining unit members.

The Board directed the applicant to file detailed submissions supporting its position on timeliness, with the responding party and intervenor given an opportunity to respond.

The responding party union requested an extension of time to file its response to the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to September 14, 2001, and reminded the union to deliver all correspondence to all other parties.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file its response to the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to September 21, 2001.

The applicant filed an application to terminate bargaining rights under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The applicant requested that the Board not order a representation vote at this time because a similar application was filed in the federal jurisdiction, raising a jurisdictional issue.

The Board held the application in abeyance until the applicant advises that it be processed.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to September 28, 2001, and reminded the responding party of its delivery obligations under the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The applicants filed an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 respecting bargaining rights for employees of the successor employer following hospital restructuring.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board appointed a Board Officer to meet with the parties to attempt to resolve the matters in dispute and directed the employer to post notices of the application in the workplace.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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

The Board ordered a representation vote.

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