Russell Goodfellow

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

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 issued a certificate to the applicant union.

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and determined the appropriate bargaining unit based on the parties' agreement.

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.

The parties requested to withdraw the application in Board File No. 2049-99-U, which was granted by the Board.

In Board File No. 1755-99-U, the claim for damages against three individual responding parties was withdrawn, and the balance of the application was adjourned sine die pending compliance with the terms of a settlement.

The responding party requested that the union's application for certification be dismissed or stayed because the union failed to provide Schedules A and B to the application.

The Board denied the request, noting the absence of any allegation of prejudice to the responding party.

However, the Board warned the union that it was granting an indulgence that should not be expected in similar circumstances in the future.

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

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

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Having regard to the issues raised in the response and intervention, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to direct a representation vote at this time.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to be listed for an expeditious hearing to deal with all issues raised by the application.

The applicant, Association of Allied Health Professionals: Ontario, sought to withdraw its application against the Community Care Access Centre in Renfrew County.

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

The applicant union filed a matter against the responding party employer.

Having regard to a letter from counsel for the responding party, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the matter terminated.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union, alleging it settled her discharge grievance without her authorization.

The union had negotiated a settlement reinstating the applicant without compensation and with a suspension, but the applicant refused to accept the proposed hours of work.

The union signed the settlement to preserve her job, but the applicant refused to return to work and was deemed to have quit.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the union acted competently, professionally, and not arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or in bad faith.

The individual employees filed an application alleging that the union announced false results for a ratification vote, claiming that 79 employees swore affidavits stating they voted against ratification, despite the union reporting only 39 votes against.

The union brought a motion to dismiss the application without hearing evidence, arguing that allowing post-vote evidence would undermine the secret ballot process mandated by the Labour Relations Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the union's motion, deciding that given the unprecedented nature and seriousness of the fraud allegations, it would hear the employees' evidence before determining the legal and policy implications.

The union applied for certification.

The employer argued that three dispatchers exercised managerial functions and were employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour relations, and thus were not employees under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the dispatchers had no authority to make decisions or effective recommendations regarding hiring, firing, discipline, or other managerial functions.

The Board concluded the dispatchers were employees.

With their inclusion, the representation vote was 13 to 10 in favour of the union, and a certificate was issued.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to displace the intervenor union.

Following a representation vote won by the applicant, the intervenor challenged the results, alleging that the applicant misrepresented its identity, committed fraud by underestimating the size of the bargaining unit to achieve the required 40 percent support, and that the vote process was flawed due to inadequate notice and polling times.

The Board dismissed all allegations, finding no evidence of misrepresentation or fraud, and concluding that the vote arrangements provided employees with sufficient opportunity to cast their ballots.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

The union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of full-time drivers and mechanics.

The employer responded by proposing a combined full-time and part-time unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act.

A representation vote was held, and the union won a majority in the combined unit but lost in the full-time only unit.

The parties then swapped their positions on the appropriate unit.

The Board found the combined unit appropriate and held that section 8.1 only requires the union to have 40 percent membership support in the unit proposed in its application, not the unit ultimately found appropriate.

The union was certified to represent the combined unit.