Union certification application dismissed after failing to obtain majority support in representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for the employees of the responding party.
A representation vote was held, and the union failed to obtain more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast.
The Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the union for this bargaining unit.
Union certification granted following a successful representation vote by cleaning employees.
The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for cleaning employees of the responding party at a Canada Post sorting station.
Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and ordered a certificate to issue.
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to the union, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of Supervent Products Inc.
Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure majority support in representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
A representation vote was held, and not more than 50 per cent of the ballots cast were in favour of the applicant.
No statement of desire to make representations was filed.
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.
Representation vote ordered in union certification application after finding sufficient membership support.
The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and determined the appropriate bargaining unit.
Despite a dispute over the estimated number of employees, the Board found sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.
A vote was directed to be held on July 5, 2000.
Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.
The applicant sought to withdraw his application against the responding party union.
Based on correspondence from the applicant's counsel, the Ontario Labour Relations Board permitted the withdrawal and the matter was concluded.
The applicant requested to withdraw the application against the responding party union.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the matter was withdrawn.
Adjournment request denied as union representative's pre-planned vacation was not a sufficiently compelling reason.
The responding party union requested an adjournment of a scheduled consultation because its representative and local president had a pre-planned vacation outside the province.
One of the applicants opposed the request.
The Board denied the adjournment, finding that the basis for the request was not sufficiently compelling.
Union's application withdrawn at the request of its counsel.
The applicant union requested to withdraw its application via correspondence.
Board directs employer submissions on union's abandonment of bargaining rights before deciding conciliation officer appointment.
The Minister of Labour referred a question to the Board regarding the authority to appoint a conciliation officer requested by the employer.
The union objected to the appointment and subsequently served notice that it was abandoning its bargaining rights.
The Board cancelled the scheduled hearing and directed the employer to file submissions regarding the union's abandonment claim and to post the decision in the workplace to notify affected employees.
Adjournment of consultation denied; mere inconvenience and non-compulsory meeting absences do not justify delay.
The responding party union requested an adjournment of a scheduled consultation, citing the applicant's failure to attend meetings with a Labour Relations Officer and the vacation schedule of an important individual.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, noting that attendance at such meetings is not compulsory absent a Board order, and that mere inconvenience does not justify an adjournment.
The Board left open the possibility for the union to renew its motion during the consultation if viva voce evidence from the unavailable individual becomes necessary.
Board directs representation vote for proposed bargaining unit after finding sufficient union membership support.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and determined the appropriate bargaining unit based on the parties' agreement.
The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.
A representation vote was directed to be held on July 4, 2000.
Representation vote directed in timely application for termination of 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 responding party's bargaining rights.
The responding party 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 trade union.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.
Application adjourned sine die on consent for up to one year.
The parties 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 no request to proceed is made.
Expedited hearing scheduled for employer's application alleging unlawful strike via concerted refusal to work overtime.
The applicant employer filed an application under section 100 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party union and employees were engaging in an unlawful strike by concertedly refusing to work overtime following the breakdown of collective agreement negotiations.
The Board noted that while the allegations were unproven, a concerted refusal to work overtime can constitute an unlawful strike under the Act.
Given the urgency of unlawful strike allegations, the Board scheduled an expedited hearing to determine the merits of the application and directed the parties to attempt resolution with a Labour Relations Officer.
Application withdrawn on agreement of the parties.
The applicant union filed an application against the responding party employer.
The style of cause was amended to reflect the correct name of the responding party.
Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board ordered the matter withdrawn.
The applicant requested to withdraw the application.
Duty of fair representation application dismissed because the employer's labour relations are federally regulated.
The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The union submitted that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the employer, Brinks Canada Limited, is federally regulated and its labour relations fall under the Canada Labour Code.
The Board reviewed a Federal Court of Appeal decision confirming that Brinks' labour relations are federally regulated.
Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.
Application dismissed due to applicant's failure to file submissions regarding the Board's jurisdiction.
The applicant was directed by the Board to provide submissions concerning the Board's jurisdiction over the matter, failing which the application would be dismissed.
The applicant failed to file the required submissions within the established time limits.
Consequently, the Board dismissed the application.
Representation vote ordered in certification application; employer's section 8.1 notice found improper for lacking estimates.
The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and purported to give notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board found that the responding party failed to provide its own estimate of the number of employees, rendering the section 8.1 notice improper.
Finding that the applicant established sufficient membership support, the Board ordered a representation vote.
A dissenting board member would have sealed the ballot box or delayed the vote until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.