Board determines bargaining unit configuration following hospital merger, maintaining separate service and clerical units.
The applicant hospital, formed by the merger of two predecessor hospitals, applied under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transitions Act to determine the appropriate bargaining unit configuration.
The Board first determined that existing collective agreements did not constitute 'human resource plans' that would oust the application of the Act.
The Board then ordered that the stationary engineers represented by CUOE be included in a larger bargaining unit, finding that a separate craft unit was not effective or rational in the restructured organization.
Finally, the Board declined to combine the service and office/clerical bargaining units, concluding that there were no compelling reasons to disrupt the existing separate unit structure, which had not caused operational difficulties.
Three metal stamping companies declared related employers and held jointly liable for bankrupt company's severance obligations.
The union sought a declaration that three companies (Metalcraft, Manufacturing, and Trillium) were related employers under section 12 of the Employment Standards Act, and therefore jointly and severally liable for over $2 million in unpaid wages, termination, and severance pay owed to former employees of the bankrupt Metalcraft.
The Board found that the companies were related due to common ownership, common management by a key individual, and similar business operations.
The Board further found that the financial arrangements among the companies, driven by their primary lender, had the effect of defeating the purpose of the Act by shielding the assets of the solvent companies while leaving the employees of the bankrupt company as unsecured creditors.
The companies were declared related and jointly and severally liable for the amounts owed.
Board directed a hearing on the claim of abandoned bargaining rights due to issue complexity.
The employer and intervenors filed submissions regarding a claim of abandoned bargaining rights and the Minister of Labour's authority to appoint a conciliation officer.
The parties argued that bargaining rights had not been abandoned and that the Board could not dismiss a reference from the Minister without a hearing under Rule 46.
The Board found the issues sufficiently complex to warrant a full hearing and directed the Registrar to schedule the matter.
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.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.
Board Officer appointed to assist parties in resolving bargaining rights dispute following hospital restructuring.
The applicant hospital filed an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 regarding the bargaining rights of the responding union following hospital restructuring.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a preliminary decision appointing a Board Officer to meet with the parties to attempt a settlement.
The Board also directed the hospital to provide notice to other potentially affected bargaining agents and to post copies of the decision in the workplace for 60 days to notify employees.
Displacement application for certification granted following successful representation vote.
The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent 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 found the proposed bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.
Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.
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 issue to the applicant.
The Board also defined the appropriate bargaining unit and cancelled previously set hearing dates.
Time for filing response extended to August 18, 2000.
The responding party requested an extension of time to file its response.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to August 18, 2000.
Representation vote ordered in certification application despite employer's section 8.1 notice.
The applicant trade union applied for certification.
The responding party employer 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 numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant established sufficient membership support for a representation vote.
The Board ordered a representation vote.
A dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.
Union granted partial extension of time to file response due to applicant's alleged loss of employment.
The responding union requested an extension of time until August 30, 2000, to file its response, citing an international convention and staff vacations.
The Board granted an extension but found the requested duration excessive given the applicant's allegation of lost employment.
The Board extended the filing deadline to August 22, 2000.
Applicant directed to deliver documents and provide further particulars regarding duty of fair representation complaint.
The responding party informed the Board that the applicant failed to deliver filed documents and that the application lacked sufficient particulars.
The Board directed the applicant to deliver the documents and provide a detailed statement of material allegations regarding the alleged violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by August 16, 2000.
The responding party was relieved from filing a response until the applicant complied.
Board orders representation vote in certification application after employer fails to file response.
The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.
The Board found that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees.
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 matter withdrawn.
Application terminated due to applicant's failure to respond to Board direction.
The applicant failed to respond to a previous Board direction requiring him to notify the Board whether he wished to proceed with his application.
As a result, the Board terminated the application.
The applicant sought to withdraw the application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board granted the withdrawal.
Representation vote ordered in certification application after union demonstrated requisite 40 percent membership support.
The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.
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 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.
The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with segregated ballots for several disputed positions.
Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
The applicant requested to withdraw her application against the responding party municipality.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.
Board declined union's request to cancel hearing and issue certificate based on late representations.
The applicant union requested the Board cancel the hearing and issue a certificate because the responding party filed its statement of representations late.
The Board declined to cancel the hearing or issue a certificate at this stage, noting the applicant could renew its motion at the scheduled hearing.
Representation vote ordered in application for certification.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.
The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with segregated ballots for disputed positions including the personal manager and quality control staff.
Representation vote rescheduled on agreement of the parties following reconsideration.
The Board reconsidered its previous decision regarding the date of a representation vote based on correspondence from the intervenor's counsel.
On agreement of the parties, the representation vote was rescheduled from August 4, 2000, to August 9, 2000.
All other aspects of the previous decision were confirmed.