Application adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.
The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die until October 10, 2001.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the application would be dismissed without further notice if neither party requested a hearing before that date.
Union certification application found timely as intervener's collective agreement did not cover the newly acquired plant.
The Teamsters applied for certification of employees at a ready-mix concrete plant in Niagara Falls recently acquired by St. Lawrence Cement.
CLAC intervened, arguing the application was untimely because its existing collective agreement with St. Lawrence, which contained a province-wide geographic scope clause, already covered the Niagara Falls plant.
The Board found the scope clause ambiguous and admitted extrinsic evidence of bargaining history.
The Board concluded that CLAC's bargaining rights were historically tied to specific plants and did not automatically extend to the newly acquired Niagara Falls operation simply because the employer applied a common trade name to it.
The Teamsters' application was therefore found to be timely.
Union certified as bargaining agent following successful representation vote.
The applicant union filed an application for certification.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the union as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's Mississauga location.
A certificate was ordered to issue.
Union ordered to provide particulars of alleged unfair labour practices before renewing document production request.
The union filed an application alleging unfair labour practices, including reduction of hours and discipline of unnamed employees following an application for certification.
The union requested production of schedules and hours worked.
The responding party objected, arguing the union was on a fishing expedition and needed to provide particulars first.
The Board agreed with the responding party, ordering the union to provide written particulars before renewing its request for document production.
Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure majority support in representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification.
A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and noted the potential application of the one-year bar under section 10(3) of the Act for any subsequent applications.
Following a representation vote where not 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 dismissed the application.
The Board directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Act regarding the effect on any subsequent application filed within one year.
Board corrects typographical error in date from previous decision.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision to correct a typographical error in its previous decision dated September 14, 2001.
The reference to October 10, 1999 in paragraph 18 was corrected to October 10, 2000.
A representation vote was held, but not more than 50 per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.
No statement of desire to make representations was filed.
Application withdrawn on agreement of the parties.
The applicant union filed an application against the responding party employer.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.
Board denied union's request for expedited hearing of unfair labour practice complaint regarding vacation scheduling.
The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding party company retaliated against it for referring a dispute to arbitration by restricting employees' ability to take vacation prior to or during a statutory holiday week.
The union requested an expedited hearing because the company refused to clarify its position on future statutory holidays, including Thanksgiving.
The Board declined the request for an expedited hearing, noting that the employees would not lose their actual vacation entitlement and any harm could be remedied in the normal course.
The Board directed a Labour Relations Officer to consult with the parties.
Board directed a Labour Relations Officer to consult with parties regarding the applicant's legal representation.
The applicant advised the Board that no agreement had been reached with the union regarding his legal representation, a claim the union disputed.
The Board directed the Manager of Field Services to assign a Labour Relations Officer to consult with the parties on the matter and report back to the Board.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant requested to withdraw the application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Hearing adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.
The parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing sine die for a period not exceeding one year.
The Board granted the adjournment, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.
Application adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.
The applicant sought to adjourn the application sine die.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.
Duty of fair representation complaint dismissed where applicant's refusal to sign medical authorization thwarted grievance settlement.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union for withdrawing his discharge grievance.
The applicant had been discharged for allegedly failing to follow call-in procedures, but the union negotiated a settlement that would have reinstated him pending an independent medical evaluation regarding his work restrictions.
The applicant refused to sign the standard medical authorization form required for the evaluation, erroneously believing it would waive his right to sue the employer.
Because of his refusal, the employer withdrew the reinstatement offer and the union withdrew the grievance.
The Board dismissed the application, finding the union did not act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.
Representation vote constituency amended after employer agreed to union's proposed bargaining unit description.
In an application for certification, the Board previously directed a representation vote based on the broader of two proposed bargaining unit descriptions.
The responding hospital subsequently withdrew its proposed unit and agreed to the applicant union's smaller proposed unit.
The Board issued a decision amending the voting constituency to reflect the agreed-upon smaller unit, eliminating the need to segregate ballots, and changing the poll location on consent.
Extension of time granted to file responses; prohibition on undisclosed facts denied.
The applicant union filed applications under section 69 and subsection 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, along with an unfair labour practice complaint.
The applicant sought production of documents and requested permission to add facts and remedies after disclosure.
The responding parties objected and requested an order prohibiting the applicant from relying on undisclosed facts, as well as an extension of time to file their responses.
The Board declined to issue the prohibition order at this stage, noting it was premature, but granted the responding parties an extension of time to file their responses.
Time for filing responses extended; application found to disclose a prima facie case.
The responding party and intervenor requested an extension of time to file their responses, which the Board granted.
The responding party also contended that the application failed to disclose a prima facie case.
The Board found that the application did disclose a prima facie case and referred the matter to the Registrar.
Representation vote ordered in application for certification; employer's section 8.1 objection dismissed.
The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.
The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.
The responding party's section 8.1 objection was dismissed because it agreed with the applicant's estimate of individuals in the proposed unit.
The Board ordered a representation vote for the proposed bargaining unit.