R. R. Montague

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 5, 2000

Union certification application dismissed after failing to win majority 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, but the applicant failed to obtain more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, cancelled previously set hearing dates, and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. ARAMARK Canada Ltd., 2000 CanLII 7119

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 5, 2000

Harry Freedman

OLRB0 cases1984–2001

Board dismissed requests for declarations and fines in a duty of fair representation complaint.

The applicant filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by withdrawing her discharge grievance.

The union requested that the Board dismiss the applicant's claims for declarations that the collective agreement violated section 54 of the Act, that the union violated section 76 of the Act, and for a $10,000 fine, arguing these claims did not disclose a prima facie case.

The Board agreed, finding no factual allegations to support the section 54 and 76 claims, and noting it lacked jurisdiction to impose fines.

The Board dismissed these specific remedial requests and referred the remaining duty of fair representation complaint to a Labour Relations Officer for settlement efforts.

Primrose Palmer v. Service Employees International Union, Local 204, 2000 CanLII 8935

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 5, 2000

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 applicant, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Board issued a final decision without a hearing.

The Board found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Campbell Monument Co. Ltd., 2000 CanLII 8889

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Board grants seven-day extension for filing response despite lack of reasons in request.

The responding party union requested an extension of time limits for filing a response.

Although no reasons or specific length were provided in the request, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted a seven-day extension.

Terex Bartell Limited v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union (CAW-Canada), 2000 CanLII 8028

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Declaration granted confirming applicant union acquired predecessor's rights via merger or transfer of jurisdiction.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor, Service Employees International Union, Local 478, by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration.

Service Employees International Union, Local 204 v. Service Employees International Union, Local 478, 2000 CanLII 7486

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Board grants unopposed application declaring applicant union acquired predecessor's rights via merger.

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration.

Service Employees International Union, Local 204 v. Service Employees International Union, Local 478, St. Joseph’s General Hospital Elliot Lake, 2000 CanLII 7429

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 4314 v. Payukotayno: James and Hudson Bay Family Services, 2000 CanLII 7163

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Terminal date for employee participation extended due to employer's late posting of notice.

The applicant union filed an application for a declaration concerning the status of a successor trade union.

The Board noted that the employer did not complete the Confirmation of Posting until after the original terminal date had passed.

To ensure employees had a full opportunity to participate, the Board extended the terminal date to October 12, 2000.

Service Employees International Union, Local 204 v Service Employees International Union, Local 478, 2000 CanLII 6783

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Representation vote ordered in certification application with ballot box sealed pending resolution of timeliness dispute.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding employer disputed the proposed bargaining unit and argued the application was untimely due to a subsisting collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that there was sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board directed that a vote be held but ordered the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the timeliness and bargaining unit disputes.

One Board Member dissented, arguing no vote should be held until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Samuel Automotive, 2000 CanLII 11009

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 3, 2000

Terminal date extended to allow employee participation after delayed posting by employer.

The Board extended the terminal date for employees to file material in an application for a declaration concerning the status of a successor trade union, as the employer did not complete the Confirmation of Posting until after the original terminal date had passed.

Service Employees International Union, Local 204 v. Service Employees International Union, Local 478, 2000 CanLII 6749

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 3, 2000

Union certification application dismissed after failing to secure majority support in representation vote.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty percent 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 and imposed a one-year bar on future applications by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.

Hotel, Hospitality and Casino Workers Union v. Niagara Resorts Inc., 2000 CanLII 6504

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardOct 3, 2000

Subsequent certification application adjourned sine die pending final decision on prior application by parent union.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees.

The intervenor argued the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant's parent union had recently lost a representation vote for the same employees in a prior application, for which a final decision was still pending.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 111(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to postpone consideration of the subsequent application until a final decision was issued in the prior application.

The application was adjourned sine die.

A dissenting board member would have dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

Local Union 1075 National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW Local 1075) v. Aramark Canada Limited, 2000 CanLII 10076

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Certification application dismissed following unsuccessful representation vote; unfair labour practice complaint withdrawn on settlement.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding party employer.

Following a representation vote where the union failed to obtain more than fifty percent of the ballots cast, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the certification application and imposed a one-year bar on future applications.

The unfair labour practice complaint was withdrawn pursuant to Minutes of Settlement between the parties.

Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 837 v. Hamilton Irish Pubs Inc., 2000 CanLII 3254

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Representation vote ordered in application for certification with segregated ballots for disputed registered nurse positions.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of at least forty percent in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with a direction that ballots cast by individuals in disputed registered nurse positions be segregated.

United Steelworkers of America v. Homecare Comfort Services Inc., 2000 CanLII 10548

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Representation vote ordered in certification application despite employer's section 8.1 notice regarding bargaining unit estimate.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

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 Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the numerical difference between the parties' estimates was not significant.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that the vote should be delayed or the ballot box sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved at a hearing.

IWA - Canada v. 913096 Ontario Ltd. O/A Nipissing Manor Nursing Care Centre, 2000 CanLII 8679

R. R. Montague

Patrick Kelly

OLRB0 cases1999–2019

J. A. Ronson

Unopposed application for declaration of successor union rights granted.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor union by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration based on the materials filed.

Service Employees International Union, Local 204 v. Service Employees International Union Local, 478, 2000 CanLII 9769

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Matter adjourned sine die for up to one year at the applicant's request.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, adjourning the matter for a period not exceeding one year.

If neither party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.

Eli Paddle v. Brenda Fluelling, 2000 CanLII 10788

Stephen Raymond

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Representation vote directed in decertification application, with ballot box sealed pending resolution of alleged employer violations.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote.

However, due to the responding party's allegations of employer violations of the Act, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed until further direction.

Alvin Lutchmedial v. Union of Needletrades Industrial and Textile Employees AFL-CIO-CLC, Local 717G, 2000 CanLII 5076

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson