Application terminated due to applicant's failure to file submissions on a jurisdictional issue.
The applicant failed to file submissions regarding a jurisdictional issue raised by the intervenor within the time period set out in a previous Board decision.
As a result, the Board directed that the application be terminated.
Representation vote ordered and ballot box sealed in certification application amid bargaining unit dispute.
The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.
The responding party argued that a prior application had not been finally disposed of and that this application should be barred.
The Board noted that the prior application was withdrawn without conditions on the same day.
The Board found that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate, but due to a dispute over the number of employees and the bargaining unit description, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken and the ballot box be sealed pending further order or agreement.
Board directs representation vote in displacement application for certification at University of Windsor.
The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent a bargaining unit of clerical, secretarial, and office employees at the University of Windsor, who were currently represented by the intervenor.
The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least 40% of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken to determine whether the employees wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor.
Representation vote directed in certification application despite responding party's dispute over bargaining unit composition.
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 Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to obtain a representation vote.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency, with segregated ballots for disputed positions including office and clerical staff and guards.
Hearing adjourned sine die pending review of a proposed settlement.
The Board convened a teleconference with counsel for the parties to review a proposed settlement that could resolve all matters in both files.
With the agreement of counsel, the Board adjourned sine die the hearing scheduled for April 20, 2001, in Board File No. 1690-98-ES, pending the issuance of a Board Order regarding the settlement.
Union certification application dismissed after failing to win majority 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.
No statement of desire to make representations was filed.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification.
Representation vote directed and ballots to be counted despite employer's section 8.1 notice.
The applicant trade union applied for certification.
The responding party employer disputed the union'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 majority of the Board found that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the union had established sufficient membership support to direct a representation vote and have the vote counted.
A dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.
Expedited hearing scheduled for application alleging unlawful strike at construction sites.
The applicant filed an application under section 144 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that employees of various contractors were engaging in an unlawful strike called by the responding unions.
The applicant sought a declaration that the strike activity was unlawful and a direction prohibiting the conduct.
The Board noted the comprehensive statutory code prohibiting unlawful strikes and the importance of expedition in such matters.
The Board scheduled an expedited hearing and directed the responding parties to file their responses.
Union decertified following representation vote where majority opposed the union.
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 cast were 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.
Applications withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant union requested to withdraw multiple applications against the responding party employer.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications based on correspondence from the applicant's counsel.
Union certification granted following successful representation vote at child care centre.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding child care centre.
Following a representation vote where 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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.
Sale of part of a business found where purchaser acquired training centre and retained predecessor's clients.
The applicant union alleged that a sale of part of a business occurred when Ontario Hydro sold the Glen Cross Conference and Training Centre to Goldman Hotels Inc. The purchaser argued that it merely bought idle assets and started a new business.
The Board found that there was substantial continuity of enterprise, evidenced by a two-year leaseback to Ontario Hydro and continued room bookings from former clients.
The Board also found substantial continuity in the bargaining unit work performed by the front-line staff.
The Board concluded that a sale of part of a business occurred under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act and declared that the collective agreement applied to the purchaser's operation.
Hearing adjourned to allow the applicant to retain a qualified interpreter.
The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.
At the hearing, the Ministry of Labour raised a preliminary motion regarding an alleged settlement.
During her examination in chief concerning the circumstances of the settlement, the applicant requested an interpreter as she did not understand the questions in English.
With the agreement of all parties, the Board adjourned the hearing to allow the applicant to retain a qualified interpreter.
Representation vote directed in union certification application after employer failed to file a response.
The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.
Based on the application material and membership evidence, the Board found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees in the voting constituency.
Representation vote directed in displacement application for certification at nursing home.
The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor union.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty per cent of the proposed bargaining unit.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees to determine whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor.
Representation vote directed in displacement application for union certification.
The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees of the responding party, who were currently represented by the intervenor union.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that it appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.
Board directs representation vote in displacement application for certification.
The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification.
Based on the application and membership evidence, the Board found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.
Representation vote ordered in certification application with ballot box sealed pending employer's reconsideration request.
The Board found the applicant established sufficient membership support for a representation vote.
The Board directed a representation vote and ordered the ballot box sealed pending the responding party's intended request for reconsideration of a previous Board decision allowing the withdrawal of a prior certification application without a bar under section 7(9).
Board Member Rundle dissented, stating the ballot box should also be sealed under section 8.1(4) due to the dispute over the number of individuals in the unit.
Representation vote directed in certification application despite employer's section 8.1 notice disputing employee estimate.
The majority of the Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support and directed a representation vote, noting that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant.
The dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.
Representation vote ordered in application for termination of bargaining rights.
The applicant filed an application 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 to be timely under section 63(2) of the Act.
As it appeared that not less than forty per cent 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.