Russell Goodfellow

The responding party requested an adjournment of the matter.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no further action is taken.

The applicant, Aclo Compounders Inc., brought a matter before the Ontario Labour Relations Board against the United Steelworkers of America.

Having regard to a letter from the Director of Labour Management Services, the Board ordered the matter terminated.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of The Opinicon Limited.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

A one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant was imposed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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

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 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 Board found the application timely and that not less than forty percent 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 of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The responding party's allegations under section 63(16) of the Act were deferred to a post-vote hearing.

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

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

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

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, Teamsters Local Union 938, sought to withdraw its application against Carquest Canada Ltd. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant filed an application against the Toronto Transit Commission.

The parties reached minutes of settlement and requested that the application be withdrawn.

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

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 found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate.

The Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant and cancelled previously set meeting and hearing dates.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent the 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 filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and directed that a certificate issue.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file a response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to October 11, 2000.

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 directed a representation vote.

Although the responding party disputed the bargaining unit description and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board found the notice was not numerically relevant and directed that the ballots be counted.

A dissenting Board member argued that the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant had the requisite 40% membership support and ordered a representation vote.

The majority declined to seal the ballot box based on the employer's section 8.1 notice, finding it numerically irrelevant.

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

The responding party requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found insufficient reason to grant the adjournment and directed that the hearing proceed as scheduled.

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 individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote.

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but the Board found the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and the notice was not numerically relevant, so the ballot box would not be sealed.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.