Applicant directed to respond to union's request for particulars.
The responding party union requested that the Board order the applicant to provide particulars pursuant to Rule 43 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, as the applicant had not responded to a prior request.
The Board directed the applicant's counsel to provide comments concerning the requested particulars or to provide the information sought by a specified date.
Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the responding party.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate will issue to the applicant.
The previously scheduled meeting and hearing dates were cancelled.
Applications withdrawn on agreement of the parties.
The applicant filed applications against Greenline Forest Products Ltd. and the Ministry of Labour.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the applications withdrawn.
Labour relations application withdrawn on agreement of the parties.
The applicant filed an application against the responding party before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Following an agreement between the parties, the Board ordered that the application be withdrawn.
Time for delivery and filing of response extended.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted a request from counsel for the Ontario Public Service Employees Union to extend the time for delivery and filing of its response to January 8, 2001.
Board adds Johnson Controls as a responding party to the union's amended application.
The applicant union filed an amended application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 to add Johnson Controls World Services Ltd. as a responding party.
The Board granted the amendment and added the party, relieving the other responding parties from filing amended responses.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant union requested to withdraw its application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.
Application withdrawn on agreement of the parties.
The applicant union brought an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board ordered the application withdrawn.
Matter terminated by the Board based on the agreement of the parties.
The applicant filed a matter against the responding party.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board amended the style of cause to reflect the correct name of the responding party.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board terminated the matter.
Time for filing and delivery of the response extended to January 8, 2001.
The Service Employees International Union, Local 204, requested an extension of time to file and deliver its response to the application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to January 8, 2001.
The applicants filed an application against the Iron Worker's Union.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.
Board directs submissions on preliminary motions regarding jurisdiction and prima facie case in reprisal application.
The applicant filed an application under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act alleging an unlawful reprisal.
The responding party, the Ontario Provincial Police, sought to dismiss the application on a preliminary basis, arguing it failed to disclose a prima facie case and that section 50(8) of the Act removed the Board's jurisdiction.
The Board directed the applicant to provide submissions on the jurisdictional issue and directed the responding party to provide detailed written submissions on its prima facie motion.
Representation vote directed in application to terminate union's bargaining rights.
The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.
The Board found the application to be timely under section 63(2) and determined that at least forty per cent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.
Consequently, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.
Applicant declared bound to OPSEU collective agreement following a majority representation vote.
The applicant filed an application under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
Following a representation vote in which a majority of unspoiled ballots were cast in favour of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), the Board declared the applicant bound to the collective agreement between OPSEU and Lake of the Woods Child Development Centre.
The bargaining unit was amended to include all employees of the applicant, subject to specific exclusions.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the Gladstone Hotel.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.
Applicant directed to provide particulars of alleged trade union misconduct or face dismissal of application.
The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 regarding a pay rate grievance.
The Board found that the application failed to plead any material facts alleging improper conduct by the applicant's trade union, focusing instead exclusively on the employer.
The Board directed the applicant to provide a concise statement of material facts detailing the trade union's alleged arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by January 4, 2001, failing which the application would be dismissed.
Board directs representation vote in application to terminate union's bargaining rights.
The applicant employees applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.
The Board found the application timely under section 63(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.
The Board directed a representation vote to be held on January 3, 2001.
Board scheduled continuation dates for an employment standards appeal after parties failed to agree.
The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay under the Employment Standards Act.
After the parties failed to agree on continuation dates following the first day of hearing, the Board convened a teleconference and scheduled three continuation dates for March 2001.
Board issues consent order for certification and future representation vote following sale of business.
The applicant union applied for certification.
The parties entered into a memorandum of agreement acknowledging a sale of business and the future intermingling of employees represented by two different unions.
The Board issued a consent order incorporating the agreement, which provided for the issuance of a certificate to the applicant for certain locations, the continuation of the intervenor's bargaining rights at other locations, and a future representation vote to determine the bargaining agent for the intermingled employees.
Board directed parties to provide missing memorandum of agreement in joint application for early termination.
The employer and the trade union brought a joint application under section 58(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for early termination of their collective agreement.
The parties indicated they had agreed to reopen the agreement and enclosed a memorandum of agreement, but the Board had no record of it.
The Board directed the parties to provide a copy of the memorandum before considering the application further, noting that if the parties merely agreed to revise provisions other than the term of operation, the application would be unnecessary under section 58(5).