Union certification granted after Board dismisses employee objections to counting part-time employees' segregated ballots.
The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's workplace.
Following a representation vote, objecting employees challenged the inclusion of segregated ballots cast by part-time employees.
The Board dismissed the objection, noting the parties had agreed the bargaining unit comprised all employees, and counted the ballots.
As more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered a certificate to issue.
Union's bargaining rights terminated after it stated it no longer wished to represent the employees.
The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.
The union responded stating it no longer wished to represent the employees in the bargaining unit.
Pursuant to section 63(17) of the Act, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees.
Representation vote ordered in union certification application after sufficient membership support demonstrated.
The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.
The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and that it established sufficient membership support in the proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.
The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of employees but agreed the ballots should be counted.
The Board directed a representation vote to be held on June 20, 2001, and ordered the responding party to properly post the required notices.
Representation vote directed in displacement application for certification of hospital security officers.
The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent a bargaining unit of security officers employed by the responding party hospital.
The employees were currently represented by the intervenor union.
The Ontario Labour Relations 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.
The Board directed that a representation vote be held to allow the employees to choose between the applicant and the intervenor.
Application for certification dismissed after union failed to win majority in representation vote.
The applicant union filed an application 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.
As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and noted the potential one-year bar on subsequent applications under section 10(3) of the Act.
Union certification granted; objections regarding insufficient notice of representation vote dismissed.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent part-time employees of the responding party.
A representation vote was held, and the majority of ballots were cast in favour of the union.
The responding party and eight objecting employees requested a second vote, alleging insufficient notice of the vote and a change in the voting time.
The Board dismissed the objections, noting that the responding party had agreed to the issuance of a final certificate and that the objecting employees did not allege they were personally unable to vote.
The Board issued a certificate to the applicant union.
Board grants successorship declarations following trade union merger and confirms applicant's trade union status.
The applicant trade union brought applications for certification and for declarations of successorship under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, following a merger with several predecessor locals.
The Board first determined that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act, based on its history, constitution, and uncontested submissions.
The Board then granted the successorship applications, declaring that the applicant acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor locals.
Despite concerns about the lack of segregated voting by bargaining unit in one of the applications, the Board granted the relief because there were no employee objections and the union's constitution had been complied with.
Union breached duty of fair representation by arbitrarily dropping termination grievance without providing reasonable explanation.
The applicant was terminated from his employment following a sexual harassment complaint by a co-worker who was also a union official.
The union filed a grievance but later decided not to pursue it to arbitration, providing the applicant with only a brief, general explanation that the case lacked merit.
The Board found that the union violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, noting that given the severe consequences of a discharge for sexual harassment and the potential conflict of interest involving the complainant, the union's failure to provide a detailed, reasonable explanation for abandoning the grievance suggested arbitrary conduct.
The Board ordered the union to refer the grievance to arbitration and to fund independent legal counsel for the applicant.
Board directed filing of materials and scheduled a consultation for unresolved public sector transition issues.
The applicant brought an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.
Following an Officer's report that issues remained in dispute, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the parties to file briefs and documents, and scheduled a consultation to hear representations on the unresolved matters.
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, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.
Hearing adjourned on consent of the parties.
The parties agreed to adjourn the hearing scheduled for June 5, 2001.
The Board directed the applicant to advise by June 13, 2001 whether the matter should be rescheduled.
Request for reconsideration of representation vote date dismissed to avoid employee confusion.
The applicant union requested reconsideration of the Board's decision to hold a representation vote on June 7, 2001, rather than June 4, 2001, arguing that the Board's discretion under section 8(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to order a vote beyond the five-day period should be exercised sparingly.
The responding party employer indicated that significantly more employees would be scheduled to work on June 7 than on June 4.
The Board declined to amend its decision, finding that even if the applicant's submissions regarding the test for delaying the vote were correct, ordering a change to the vote date on the day it was originally requested would cause confusion among employees.
The request for reconsideration was dismissed, with one Board Member dissenting.
Application withdrawn at the request of the applicants.
The applicants requested to withdraw their application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The Board granted the request and the matter was withdrawn.
Extension of time to file response granted; deferral determination postponed.
The responding party requested an extension of time to file its response and argued that the Board should defer the application to the collective agreement's grievance procedure.
The applicant took no position on the extension but opposed deferral without a filed response.
The Board granted the extension of time to June 15, 2001, and declined to make a determination on deferral until the response is filed.
Board directed applicant to confirm intent to proceed with delayed application or face termination.
The responding party union requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing due to delay, noting it was filed in November 1999 and no action had been taken by the remaining applicant since January 2000.
The Board directed the applicant to indicate in writing whether he wished to proceed with the application by June 18, 2001, failing which the matter would be terminated.
Board directs applicant to make submissions on whether application should be dismissed given grievance referral.
The applicant requested the Board to compel the intervenor to provide a detailed response to the application.
The responding union and intervenor alleged that the underlying discharge grievance had been referred to arbitration, and the union asked the Board to refuse to hear the application for lack of a valid labour relations purpose.
The Board directed the applicant to make submissions on whether the grievance was referred to arbitration and why the Board should not exercise its discretion to decline to inquire further.
Application withdrawn on agreement of the parties.
The applicant filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board ordered the application withdrawn.
Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed as untimely under the Labour Relations Act.
The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.
The Board found that the collective agreement was either for a two-year or three-year term expiring on December 31, 2002.
Under section 63(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, an application can only be made during the last three months of the agreement's operation.
As the application was filed on May 29, 2001, it was untimely and dismissed.
Application withdrawn by agreement of the parties.
The applicant union withdrew its application against the responding party employer by agreement of the parties.