Russell Goodfellow

The applicant union sought to withdraw its applications against The Hostess Frito-Lay Company and Weston Bakeries Limited.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its applications against the responding parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications.

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the application would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of employees at Sport Maska Inc. 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 will issue to the applicant.

The applicant applied to terminate the responding party union's bargaining rights.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The previously scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty per cent 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 dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on subsequent certification applications by the applicant for the same bargaining unit was imposed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50 per cent 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 certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent stage employees of the Corporation of the City of Guelph.

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 taken and ordered the ballot box sealed pending the resolution of the responding party's objections under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, as well as issues regarding the appropriateness of the bargaining unit and the applicant's trade union status.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's Mississauga location.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the parties agreed on the appropriate bargaining unit.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board determined that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union.

Consequently, the Board ordered a representation vote to be held.

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 union's bargaining rights.

The union sought to dismiss the application without a vote, citing errors in the union's name, the inclusion of cooperative students in the 40 percent appearance calculation, and improper delivery.

The majority of the Board rejected these arguments, finding the application timely and that at least 40 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The Board directed a representation vote.

A dissenting Board member would have dismissed the application based on the flaws contained within it.

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 at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on February 14, 2000, and directed that the ballot box be sealed pending resolution of a section 8.1 notice and a dispute over the correct name of the responding party.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent security officers employed by the responding party casino.

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

The responding party raised several disputes regarding the bargaining unit description, employer name, and managerial exclusions, which the Board directed to be addressed by segregating the ballots of affected individuals.

The Board dismissed the responding party's request to seal the ballot box pending a determination of the applicant's status as a registered supplier under the Gaming Control Act, 1992, deferring that issue until after the vote.

A dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed.

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 at least 40% of the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote.

The employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but the majority found it numerically irrelevant and declined to seal the ballot box.

A dissenting Board member would have sealed the ballot box based on a plain reading of sections 8 and 8.1.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding party university.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of Leroux Steel Inc., Ottawa Division.

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 found the bargaining unit appropriate and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

Following a decision entitling the applicant to payment from the company, the applicant wrote to the Board requesting the inclusion of accrued interest.

The Board directed the responding parties to file a response to the request within 14 days, failing which the Board will order the payment of interest.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Marmon/Keystone Canada Inc. Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent 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.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on subsequent applications by the applicant for the same bargaining unit was imposed.

The applicant employer sought review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with $408.80 returned to the employer, $350.00 paid to the employee, and a $100.00 administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.