Russell Goodfellow

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

The Ontario Labour Relations 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 directed a representation vote to be held, with segregated ballots for employees whose inclusion in the bargaining unit or the construction industry provisions remained in dispute.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least 40 percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote to be taken.

The responding party disputed being the employer, suggesting the employees were employed by an employment agency; the Board deferred the resolution of the employer identity issue until after the vote.

The applicant applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.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 under section 63(2) of the Act.

Finding that not less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant employee sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay.

A hearing was scheduled and notice was provided to all parties.

Neither the applicant nor the responding party employer attended the hearing.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The applicant brought a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Having regard to the Minutes of Settlement filed by the parties, the Adjudicator/Referee ordered the matter terminated.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a breach of section 74 by the responding union.

The union and the intervenor employer filed a response and intervention, requesting dismissal.

The Board directed the applicant to file a reply indicating which facts she disagreed with, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The responding employees did not attend the hearing, while counsel for the Ministry of Labour was present.

The adjudicator granted the adjournment request for the reasons set out in the applicant's correspondence, and directed the registrar to set a new hearing date.

The applicant requested to add Valley Savings (Renfrew County) Credit Union Inc. as a responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and added the party.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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

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

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

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The parties subsequently filed Minutes of Settlement with the Board.

Based on the settlement, the Board dismissed the application for certification under paragraph 7 of subsection 8.1(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and ordered the destruction of the ballots cast in the representation vote.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of First Choice Haircutters in Windsor.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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 directed a representation vote to be held, with segregated ballots for employees affected by disputes over the geographic scope and occupational composition of the bargaining unit.

The applicant employer applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 65 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the union's bargaining rights.

The parties agreed to resolve the matter by conducting a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held in accordance with the parties' agreement, with the outcome determining whether the termination application is withdrawn or the union abandons its bargaining rights.

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had the requisite membership support.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with segregated ballots for certain disputed positions, and directed the posting of notices.

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

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 directed that a representation vote be taken, with segregated ballots for employees whose inclusion in the bargaining unit was disputed by the parties.

The applicant sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's order requiring it to pay $7,288.90 in vacation pay to the responding employees.

The applicant argued it was neither the employer nor the purchaser of the business, having only entered into a management agreement.

The Board found the applicant fell within the broad definition of 'employer' and that the management agreement, which allowed the applicant to retain all profits and bear all losses, constituted a sale of the business under section 13 of the Employment Standards Act.

The order was affirmed, and the Board declined to return the statutory administration fee to the unsuccessful applicant.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

The Board noted that another application for termination of bargaining rights had been filed by the same applicant in respect of the same bargaining unit, and a vote had been directed in that earlier application.

The Board ordered that the current application be held in abeyance pending the disposition of the earlier application.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of taxi drivers and owners.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed a representation vote after finding the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support.

However, because the applicant had not yet established its trade union status and the intervenor raised allegations of employer support and unfair labour practices, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed pending the resolution of those disputes.

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

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed within the time fixed under Rule 62 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

Consequently, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Due to issues raised in the response and intervention, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to direct a representation vote at this time and referred the matter to the Registrar to be listed for an expeditious hearing.