Application to terminate bargaining rights dismissed after union won representation vote; second vote denied.
The applicant sought to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.
Following a representation vote where not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, the applicant and the intervenor employer requested a second vote, alleging voter confusion.
The Board declined to order a second vote, finding the ballot question clear and noting no valid reason for the request.
The application to terminate bargaining rights was dismissed.
Union permitted to amend certification application to include missing employee estimate; single representation vote proposed.
The applicant union filed an application for certification but failed to state the estimated number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit.
The responding employer requested that the application be rejected as fundamentally deficient.
The applicant subsequently requested leave to amend the application to include the missing information.
The Board permitted the amendment, finding that the employer's concerns were addressed by the provision of the information.
The Board also noted a second certification application by another union for the same employees and indicated its inclination to direct a single representation vote with a three-way ballot, subject to any written submissions from the parties.
Applicants directed to deliver amended Certificate of Delivery to responding parties in section 74 application.
The applicants filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Registrar returned the application due to an improperly completed Certificate of Delivery.
The applicants re-submitted the Certificate but failed to deliver copies to the responding union and the intervenor employer.
The Board directed the applicants to deliver copies of the amended Certificate of Delivery to the other parties and their counsel.
Representation vote directed in timely 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application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.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 and that not less than forty per cent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.
The responding party sought dismissal without a vote but provided no representations in support.
The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.
Request for reconsideration of representation vote format denied as arguments could have been raised initially.
The responding university requested reconsideration of a Board decision that ordered an in-person representation vote and denied a mail-in vote.
The university sought a mail-in vote, additional polling locations, or the exclusion of remote faculty from the bargaining unit.
The Board denied the request, finding that the university offered no compelling reasons that could not have been raised in its initial response, and that there was insufficient time to establish additional polls before the scheduled vote.
Representation vote directed in certification application where parties agreed on the appropriate bargaining unit.
The applicant trade union applied for certification.
The responding party agreed the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate but disputed the estimated number of employees, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The Board could not be absolutely certain that 40% of the individuals in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant, but the responding party agreed the ballots cast in the representation vote should be counted.
Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.
The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.
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.
Union certified as bargaining agent for paramedical employees following successful representation vote.
The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for paramedical employees at Brockville General Hospital.
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 certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.
Board directs union to explain prejudice from defective service or file response by extended deadline.
The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The application was initially returned due to an improperly completed Certificate of Delivery, but was later re-submitted.
The responding union argued it was not obligated to file a response because it had not been served with the entire application in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.
The Board noted the union appeared to have the substance of the application and directed the union to either file submissions explaining how it was prejudiced by the procedural breach or file its response by an extended deadline.
Application dismissed following Minutes of Settlement between the parties.
The applicant union filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
The parties reached Minutes of Settlement.
Based on the settlement, the Board amended the style of cause to correct a responding party's name and dismissed the application.
Board cancels hearing dates and directs written submissions on consent of the parties.
The parties requested the cancellation of scheduled hearing dates to determine five issues on the basis of written submissions.
The Board granted the request, cancelled the hearing dates, and directed the parties to file written submissions according to their agreed schedule.
Application for review of Order to Pay resolved by minutes of settlement.
The applicant employer sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.
The parties resolved part of the matter through minutes of settlement prior to the hearing.
At the hearing, the parties entered into discussions with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer and resolved the remaining issues.
The Board ordered the disbursement of funds held in trust in accordance with the settlement and terminated the matter.
Employee appeal dismissed due to the applicant's failure to appear at the hearing.
The applicant filed an employee appeal under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act regarding an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.
The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.
The responding parties moved to dismiss the application on the basis of abandonment.
The Board granted the motion and dismissed the application.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board.
The applicant requested to withdraw the application via correspondence.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.
Application adjourned sine die for up to one year at the applicant's request.
The applicant requested an adjournment of her application.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, and relieved the applicant from filing written submissions previously directed, unless the matter proceeds within that time.
Applicant directed to provide written submissions on material facts before Board considers motions to dismiss.
The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
The union and the employer filed responses seeking the dismissal of the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.
Before dealing with the motions to dismiss, the Board directed the applicant to provide written submissions indicating whether she agrees with specific material facts alleged by the union in its response.
Non-union employees added as interested parties in labour relations proceeding; hearing adjourned on consent.
The applicant union and the responding party municipality were involved in a proceeding before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
A group of non-union employees wrote to the Board expressing their desire to retain their non-union status and not be represented by the applicant.
The responding party requested that these employees be added as intervenors, which the applicant opposed.
The Board found it appropriate to add the non-union employees as interested parties, leaving any further issues regarding their status to the hearing panel.
The Board also granted a consent adjournment of the scheduled hearing date.
Employer ordered to produce documents for inspection in certification and unfair labour practice proceedings.
In the context of an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint, the applicant union sought production of various documents from the responding employer.
The employer objected to several requests on grounds of relevance, confidentiality, and the non-existence of certain documents.
The Board applied the test of arguable relevance and ordered the employer to make available for inspection most of the requested documents.
The Board allowed the employer to redact commercial pricing information and directed the applicant to pay reasonable photocopying costs.
Application dismissed for failure to file submissions; Board warns applicant against further vexatious litigation.
The applicant failed to file written submissions as directed by the Board in a previous decision.
Consequently, the Board dismissed the application in Board File No. 1685-01-U. The Board also considered the responding parties' request to impose a one-year bar on future applications by the applicant due to abuse of process.
While the Board found the applicant's multiple unmeritorious applications constituted an abuse of process, it declined to impose a formal bar or require leave for future applications at this time, warning that further unmeritorious litigation could change this view.
Application withdrawn with leave of the Board; representation vote ballot to be destroyed.
The applicant sought to withdraw the application following a representation vote.
The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and directed the Registrar to destroy the ballot cast in the representation vote after 30 days.