Board directed responding party to post amended notice of application after original notice was not posted.
The applicant union filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The responding party acknowledged that it failed to post the Notice to Employees of Application (Form B-18) in the workplace.
The Board directed the Registrar to issue an amended Form B-18 with a new terminal date and ordered the responding party to post the amended notice, the application, and the notice of hearing in locations where they would come to the attention of affected employees.
Applications for certification and unfair labour practice withdrawn with leave of the Board on consent.
The applicant union sought to withdraw its applications for certification and an unfair labour practice against the responding party employer.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications.
The Board directed the parties' attention to section 7(10) of the Labour Relations Act regarding the potential effect on any subsequent certification application filed within one year.
The Registrar was directed to destroy the ballots cast in the representation vote.
Board directed applicants to file submissions on timeliness or face dismissal of their application.
The responding party union locals brought motions to dismiss the application as untimely, as it was filed more than two years after the events complained of.
The Board previously directed the applicants to file submissions in response by October 22, 2001.
Having received no submissions, the Board directed the applicants to file written submissions by November 1, 2001, explaining why the application should not be dismissed, failing which the application would be dismissed without further notice.
Board directed submissions on whether a decertification application was timely under the applicable labour legislation.
The applicant employees applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a declaration terminating the responding union's bargaining rights.
The union objected, arguing the application was untimely under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.
The Board directed the applicant and the employer to file written submissions on the timeliness issue before giving further consideration to the application.
Representation vote directed in union's application for certification.
The applicant union filed an application for certification.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.
The Board directed a representation vote and ordered that ballots of disputed office and clerical staff be segregated.
Requests to reconsider direction for representation vote dismissed; timeliness and ballot issues deferred to hearing.
The responding party and an intervenor requested reconsideration of a Board decision directing a representation vote in a certification application.
They argued the application was untimely due to an existing voluntary recognition agreement and raised issues with the ballot form.
The Board dismissed the requests, noting that conducting a speedy representation vote aligns with the purposes of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the timeliness and ballot issues could be addressed by the panel assigned to hear the matter without delaying the vote.
Board orders expeditious representation vote with segregated ballots despite dispute over employer identity.
The applicant union filed an application for certification and sought to rely on membership evidence from a previously withdrawn application.
The responding party objected, arguing that the named employer did not exist and that the application actually encompassed two separate corporate entities.
The responding party requested a hearing prior to any representation vote to address the employer identity issue and a potential statutory bar.
The Board declined to delay the vote, finding sufficient appearance of membership support to order an expeditious representation vote.
The Board directed that ballots be segregated by employer to preserve the parties' positions for future determination.
One Board member dissented, arguing a hearing should precede the vote.
Representation vote ordered and ballot box sealed in certification application amid employer identity dispute.
The applicant trade union applied for certification.
The responding party and an intervenor union objected, arguing that the affected individuals were employed by a different entity and already represented by the intervenor.
The Board found that the applicant had established the requisite forty percent membership support in its proposed bargaining unit.
The Board ordered a representation vote but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending the resolution of the disputes regarding the identity of the employer and the effect of the alleged existing bargaining relationship.
Representation vote directed in application to terminate union bargaining rights.
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 as it was filed during the open period of the collective agreement.
Despite some discrepancies in the evidence of employee wishes, the Board was satisfied that not less than forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.
Application withdrawn on agreement of the parties.
The applicant filed an application against the responding party union.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.
Representation vote directed for proposed bargaining unit of Early Childhood Educators.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of Early Childhood Educators employed by the Lakehead District School Board.
As the Board had not previously found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, it directed the applicant to file materials establishing its status.
Finding that at least forty percent of the proposed unit were members of the union, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.
Application terminated by the Board on the agreement of the parties.
The applicant filed an application against the responding party before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board terminated the application.
Union waived solicitor-client privilege over strategic legal advice by pleading reliance on advice to justify seniority end-tailing.
In an unfair labour practice and duty of fair representation complaint regarding the end-tailing of seniority following a corporate amalgamation, the applicant sought production of legal opinions and advice provided to the responding union.
The responding union claimed solicitor-client privilege over advice concerning strategy and negotiations, while conceding waiver regarding the legality of end-tailing.
The Board held that by pleading reliance on legal advice to establish the bona fides of its decision to end-tail seniority, the responding union impliedly waived privilege over all related legal advice, including recommended options and strategies.
Production of the documents was ordered.
Representation vote ordered in application for certification by Universal Workers Union.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of Westwood Management.
The Board found the applicant to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and was satisfied that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit appeared to be members.
The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on October 24, 2001, and directed the responding party to post the required notices.
Representation vote directed in application for union certification.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
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 union.
Representation vote directed for volunteer firefighters; employer's request to seal ballot box denied.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of volunteer firefighters of the City of Welland.
The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support and directed a representation vote.
The responding party disputed that the individuals were employees of the City, arguing they were either not employees or were employed by volunteer firefighter companies, and requested that the ballots be segregated and the ballot box sealed.
The Board declined to make a special order for segregation, directing that any challenges to voter eligibility be made in the normal course during the vote.
Board orders three related files to be heard together by the same panel.
The Christian Labour Association of Canada requested that three related files be heard together.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and listed the files to be heard by the same panel on October 29 and 30, 2001.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board on agreement of the parties.
The applicant sought to withdraw the application.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Request to re-list applications granted as it was made within the sine die adjournment period.
The applicant requested to re-list the applications for hearing within the one-year sine die adjournment period previously granted by the Board.
The responding party resisted the request, alleging unreasonable delay and seeking dismissal.
The Board held that the applicant's request was timely and that it was not obligated to explain the timing.
The Board directed that the matters be re-listed for hearing.
Application dismissed due to applicant's failure to explain delay and respond to Board directions.
The applicant filed an application but failed to respond to the Board's direction to file submissions concerning delay and certain allegations in the responding party's response.
The Board deemed the applicant to agree with the responding party's allegations and found the applicant failed to explain the excessive delay.
The application was dismissed.