Board expedites hearing for union access complaint during open period but denies interim relief.
The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the responding hospital restricted its access to employees during a statutory open period, contrary to sections 70, 72(c), and 76 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The union sought interim relief, including a cease and desist order and access to the premises, as well as an expedited hearing.
The Board granted the request for an expedited hearing due to the potential for the issues to become moot, but declined to grant the requested interim relief, noting the lack of cited authority for substantive interim relief and that the expedited hearing would provide an early opportunity to address remedies.
Representation vote ordered in certification application; employer's section 8.1 objection invalid for failing to list employees.
The applicant union applied for certification.
The responding employer disputed the union's estimate of employees in the proposed bargaining unit, arguing the workers were independent contractors, and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board found the employer's section 8.1 objection invalid because it failed to provide a list of individuals or propose a different bargaining unit.
The Board ordered a representation vote.
Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing the ballot box should be sealed under subsection 8.1(4).
Application adjourned sine die on consent for up to one year.
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.
Applications withdrawn on agreement of the parties.
The applicant union and the responding party, Atlantic Packaging Products Ltd., reached an agreement regarding the applications.
Having regard to this agreement, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the applications withdrawn.
Representation vote directed in application for certification despite dispute over bargaining unit composition.
The Christian Labour Association of Canada applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at York Central Hospital.
The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and proposed a different bargaining unit, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with ballots of individuals in disputed positions to be segregated.
Board directs representation vote in timely 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 bargaining rights of the responding party union.
The union failed to file a response within the stipulated time.
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 union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.
Application adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board on consent of the parties.
The applicants sought to withdraw their application against the responding party union.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
Applications withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant requested to withdraw his applications against the responding parties.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the applications were withdrawn.
Application withdrawn on 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 ordered the application withdrawn.
Union certification application dismissed after failing to win majority in representation vote.
The applicant union filed an application for certification.
A representation vote was held, and 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.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Act regarding the effect on any subsequent application filed within one year.
The applicant and responding party agreed to adjourn the application sine die.
Board postpones consideration of subsequent certification application pending final decision on prior competing application.
A previous application for certification had been filed by an intervenor union for the same employees, and a representation vote had been held but not finally determined.
The responding party and intervenor requested that the Board refuse to entertain or postpone the subsequent application under s. 111(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board ordered that consideration of the subsequent application be postponed until a final decision is issued on the prior application, as the outcome of the prior application could render the subsequent one untimely or otherwise affect it.
Union decertified after majority of employees vote in opposition during representation vote.
The applicant 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 of Euro-Can Manufacturing Inc.
Board directs representation vote for proposed bargaining unit of hospital service employees.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of service employees at the responding party hospital.
The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had established sufficient membership support (not less than 40%) in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency, with disputed positions casting segregated ballots.
Representation vote ordered in certification application; majority declines to seal ballot box despite section 8.1 notice.
The applicant trade union applied for certification.
The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.
The responding party disputed the bargaining unit estimate and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The majority of the Board found the numerical difference insignificant and ordered a representation vote without sealing the ballot box.
The dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.
Representation vote directed in application for termination of bargaining rights.
The applicants 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 per cent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board upon request by the applicant union.
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.
Application dismissed due to applicant's failure to file written submissions.
The applicant failed to file and deliver written submissions within the extended time frame stipulated by the Board in a previous decision.
Consequently, the application was dismissed without further notice.
Time for filing and delivery of responses extended.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted an extension of time for the filing and delivery of responses to September 26, 2001, having regard to correspondence from counsel for the intervenor.