R. R. Montague

R. R. Montague

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 14, 2000

Unopposed application for declaration of successor trade 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 trade union by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and issued the requested declaration.

CAW Local 414 v. Retail Wholesale Canada, Local 414, 2000 CanLII 9331

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 14, 2000

Unopposed application for a declaration of successor trade union rights granted.

The application was unopposed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and issued the requested declaration.

CAW Local 1000 v. Retail Wholesale Canada, Local 1000, 2000 CanLII 8663

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 13, 2000

Board directs representation vote for proposed bargaining unit of Carquest Canada Ltd. employees.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

Finding that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Teamsters Local Union 938 v. Carquest Canada Ltd., 2000 CanLII 9411

Stephen Raymond

OLRB0 cases2000–2026

R. R. Montague

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 13, 2000

Board denied applicant's request for adjournment sine die but permitted withdrawal of the application.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die or, alternatively, to withdraw its application.

The responding party opposed both requests.

The Board denied the adjournment but permitted the applicant to withdraw its application.

The scheduled hearing was cancelled.

United Steelworkers of America Local 7356 v. Union Energy Inc. and Charbonneau Home Heating Co. Ltd., 2000 CanLII 12695

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardSep 13, 2000

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding employer disputed the applicant's estimate of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the numerical difference between the parties' estimates was not significant.

The majority ordered a representation vote.

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

I.W.A. Canada, Local 2693 Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada v. Goulard Lumber (1971) Ltd., 2000 CanLII 7232

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees in the mail room 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 Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and directed that a certificate issue.

Northern Ontario Newspaper Guild Local 30232 of Communications Workers of America v. The Sudbury Star, Hollinger Canadian Newspapers L.P., 2000 CanLII 8811

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Representation vote directed in displacement certification application; intervenor's request to delay vote dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

The intervenor requested that the representation vote be delayed or the ballot box sealed pending the resolution of unfair labour practice allegations and other proceedings before the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's objections, finding no reason to delay the vote or seal the ballot box, and directed that a representation vote be taken.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Bowlero Limited, 2000 CanLII 11251

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

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

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 Board found that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

A representation vote was ordered for the eligible employees.

A dissenting Board member would have held a hearing before ordering a vote or sealed the ballot box until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Grenville Castings Ltd., 2000 CanLII 9785

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Unopposed application for union successor rights declaration 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 the predecessor union by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration.

Graphic Communications Union, Local 41M v. Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada, Local 102-O, 2000 CanLII 4609

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Board directs representation vote in displacement application, declining intervenor's request to seal ballot box.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding party failed to file a response.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support and directed a representation vote.

The intervenor requested that the vote be delayed or the ballot box sealed due to alleged unfair labour practices and pending proceedings before the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board declined to delay the vote or seal the ballot box, noting it had previously rejected similar objections in related applications.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. LaChaumiere Retirement Residence, 2000 CanLII 11252

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Board directs representation vote in displacement application, dismissing intervenor's request to seal ballot box.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding party failed to file a response.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support of at least forty percent to warrant a representation vote.

The intervenor objected to the vote and requested that the ballot box be sealed pending the resolution of alleged unfair labour practices and proceedings before the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board dismissed the intervenor's objections, noting that similar objections had been dismissed in other applications, and directed that a representation vote be held.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transporttion & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. LaChaumiere Retirement Residence, 2000 CanLII 12094

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Applications adjourned sine die for up to one year on consent of the parties.

The Service Employees International Union, Local 220 brought applications against Clover Health Care Services and various other responding parties.

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

If no party requests to proceed within that time, the matters will be deemed terminated.

Service Employees International Union, Local 220 v. Clover Health Care Services, 2000 CanLII 8872

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Board orders representation vote in certification application despite employer's section 8.1 notice.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding party disputed the bargaining unit description and employee estimate, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and ordered a representation vote, with disputed ballots to be segregated.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing the vote should not take place or the ballot box should be sealed until section 8.1 issues are resolved.

Teamsters Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 141 v. Duchess of Kent, Royal Canadian Legion Branch 263, 2000 CanLII 8943

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Time for filing intervention extended to September 15, 2000.

The intervenor, the Owen Sound Professional Fire Fighters Association, requested an extension of time to file its intervention.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and extended the time for filing to September 15, 2000.

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. City of Owen Sound, 2000 CanLII 10722

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

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

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that it appeared to have the requisite membership support of not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and established a voting constituency, while noting disputes between the parties regarding the inclusion of students, temporary employees, and certain supervisory and clerical positions.

Ballots cast by individuals in disputed positions were ordered to be segregated.

Power Workers’ Union (CUPE Local 1000 – C.L.C.) v. The Hydro Electric Commission of the Town of Newmarket, 2000 CanLII 7284

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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 Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote, directing that ballots cast by individuals in disputed positions be segregated and not counted until further order or agreement.

A dissenting board member would have sealed the ballot box or delayed the vote until the section 8.1 issues were resolved at a hearing.

Teamsters International Union, Local 847 v. The Salvation Army – Thrift Store, 2000 CanLII 7870

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Application withdrawn with leave of the Board at the applicant's request.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 503 v. City of Ottawa Non-Profit Housing Corporation, 2000 CanLII 6287

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan

Board directs representation vote in decertification application and declines union's request to seal ballot box.

The applicant employees applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

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 union.

The union requested dismissal without a vote under section 63(16) and asked that the ballot box be sealed.

The Board directed a representation vote and declined to seal the ballot box, deferring the section 63(16) allegations to a post-vote hearing if necessary.

The employees of Trillium Funeral Service v. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local #175, 2000 CanLII 8788

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

Caroline Rowan