R. R. Montague

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 22, 2001

Certification application dismissed after union failed to win majority in representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, but 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 noted the potential application of the one-year bar under section 10(3) of the Act for any subsequent certification applications.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Northern Elevator Limited, 2001 CanLII 13908

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 22, 2001

Union certification granted following a successful representation vote by nursing home employees.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent registered and graduate nurses at the responding party's nursing home.

A representation vote was held, and more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

As no statements of desire to make representations were filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant and cancelled previously set hearing dates.

Ontario Nurses’ Association v. Country Terrace Nursing Home, 2001 CanLII 16568

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 21, 2001

Employer's request for rulings declined as certification application was already withdrawn.

The applicant union previously withdrew its application for certification.

Following the withdrawal, the responding employer sought various rulings and confirmations from the Board.

The Board declined to make any further rulings, finding that the matter was terminated upon withdrawal and no useful labour relations purpose would be served by granting the requests.

National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing Canada Inc., 2001 CanLII 6252

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 21, 2001

Applications adjourned sine die on consent of the parties.

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

The applications will be deemed terminated without further notice if neither party requests to proceed within that time.

Office and Professional Employees International Union S.E.P.B. 57 v. Centre financier –Services Financiers La Laurentienne (Mérimar Inc.), 2001 CanLII 6681

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 21, 2001

Board orders employer to produce requested documents prior to the hearing.

The applicant requested an order directing production of documents from the responding party employer prior to the first day of the hearing.

The Board directed the employer to produce the documents set out in the applicant's correspondence by a specified date, or advise the Board and the applicant of any documents not produced and the reasons why.

Any disputes regarding production were left to be addressed at the hearing.

Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada Local 2693 v. Pineal Lake Lumber Company, 2001 CanLII 3686

Stephen Raymond

OLRB0 cases2000–2001

R. R. Montague

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 20, 2001

Union certification granted for food and beverage workers following a successful representation vote.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent food and beverage workers employed by the responding party.

The Board previously determined that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate will issue to the applicant.

Service Employees International Union – Local 528 v. Flamboro Downs Holdings Limited, 2001 CanLII 16534

Timothy W. Sargeant

R. R. Montague

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 20, 2001

Application withdrawn at the request of the applicant.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

Noel Baszak v. CAW Local 1256, 2001 CanLII 11361

R. R. Montague

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardAug 17, 2001

Applications withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, sought to withdraw its applications against the responding party, Casino Rama Services Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications.

United Steelworkers of America v. Casino Rama Services Inc., 2001 CanLII 18689

R. R. Montague

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

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 the numerical difference was not significant and directed a representation vote.

Board Member J.A. Ronson dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed.

Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada (I.W.A.Canada) v. ResCare Premier Canada Inc., 2001 CanLII 19784

R. R. Montague

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

Union certified as bargaining agent 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 Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada (I.W.A. Canada) v. SKLF Doors World Inc., 2001 CanLII 16608

R. R. Montague

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

Board directs representation vote in timely application for termination of bargaining rights.

The applicant applied 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 timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and declined the responding party's request to seal the ballot box.

A. Gourley of CUPE Local 3566 Technical Unit v. Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), 2001 CanLII 7850

R. R. Montague

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

Application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act withdrawn with leave following resolution.

The applicant union filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 against the responding party employer.

Prior to a hearing, the applicant advised the Board by letter that all matters at the workplace had been resolved.

The Board construed the correspondence as a request for leave to withdraw the application and granted the request, withdrawing the application with leave of the Board.

Hotel Employees Restaurant Employees Union, Local 75 v. Toronto Airport Novotel, 2001 CanLII 7053

R. R. Montague

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

Board directed written submissions on respondent's objection to late particulars and deferred ruling to hearing.

The responding party objected to the applicant's late filing of particulars and sought an immediate pre-hearing ruling to exclude them.

The Board directed the applicant to file written submissions in response and deferred any outstanding issues regarding the admissibility of the particulars to the scheduled hearing.

Teamsters Local Union No. 230 v. Lafarge Canada Inc., 2001 CanLII 7070

R. R. Montague

Mary Anne McKellar

J. A. Ronson

Representation vote directed and ballots to be counted in union 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 had established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote and have it counted.

A representation vote was directed.

Board Member J.A. Ronson dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed.

Graphic Communications International Union, Local 500M v. Quebecor Printing P.E. & E., 2001 CanLII 20229

R. R. Montague

Patrick Kelly

OLRB0 cases1999–2019

J. A. Rundle

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 30, 2001

Representation vote denied due to wide disparity in bargaining unit representation between two unions.

The applicant municipality applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board following a sale of a business from the predecessor Public Utilities Commission.

The Board considered whether to direct a representation vote between two responding trade unions.

The Board declined to order a representation vote under section 69(8) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, noting the wide disparity in bargaining unit representation (one union represented over 86% of employees, while the other represented less than 14%).

The Board also noted the parties' agreement that the applicant is bound to the predecessor's collective agreement.

The Corporation of the City of Quinte West v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 636, 2001 CanLII 16105

R. R. Montague

Patrick Kelly

OLRB0 cases1999–2019

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 10, 2001

Representation vote directed in union certification application.

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

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with segregated ballots for individuals in disputed positions.

The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada v. The Association of Management, Administrative and Professional Crown Employees of Ontario (AMAPCEO), 2001 CanLII 14594

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 10, 2001

Caroline Rowan

OLRB0 cases1999–2022

Application for certification dismissed on agreement of the parties; representation vote ballots ordered destroyed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following an agreement between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application pursuant to section 8.1(5)7 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board ordered the destruction of the ballots cast in the representation vote and directed the responding party to post copies of the decision.

U.F.C.W. Local 333 v. Toula Dining (Toronto) Ltd., 2001 CanLII 18823

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson

OLRBOntario Labour Relations BoardJul 10, 2001

Anthony Brown

OLRB0 cases2000–2001

Representation vote directed in union certification application; ballot box sealed due to bargaining unit dispute.

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

The Board found that the union filed sufficient membership evidence to warrant a representation vote.

A vote was directed for the proposed bargaining unit, with a direction to segregate ballots for disputed positions (sales staff, students, and quality control staff).

Due to a dispute over the bargaining unit description and the number of employees, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed pending further agreement or order.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union Local 175 v. (Exxon) Mobil Chemical Canada Ltd., 2001 CanLII 18993

R. R. Montague

J. A. Ronson