Russell Goodfellow

The applicant union applied for certification and won a representation vote 11-1.

The intervenor union requested the Board set aside the vote, arguing employees received inadequate notice of the intervenor's correct name.

The Board dismissed the request, finding the error in the Local's number was corrected before the vote, appeared correctly on the ballot, and had no material effect on the outcome.

The Board also declined to postpone its decision pending a Superior Court contempt motion or Canadian Labour Congress raiding charges.

A certificate was issued to the applicant.

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applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.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.

The union applied for certification and both parties filed unfair labour practice complaints.

Following a representation vote, the certification application was dismissed.

The parties agreed to a one-year bar on further certification applications for the bargaining unit.

The unfair labour practice complaints were withdrawn with leave of the Board, and all previously scheduled hearing dates were cancelled.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

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.

Accordingly, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of professional engineers employed by the responding party.

The Board found that the applicant had not previously been found to be a trade union and directed it to file supporting documents.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and ordered the ballot box not to be sealed, as the employer's section 8.1 notice was not numerically relevant.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of part-time office and clerical employees at St. Mary's General Hospital.

The intervenor union requested a postponement of the disposition pending a contempt motion and raiding charges, which the Board denied, adopting reasoning from other decisions.

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 issue to the applicant.

The applicant, Teamsters Local Union 938, filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant to be a trade union 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 a representation vote.

The responding party's section 8.1 notice was deemed not numerically relevant, meaning the ballot box would not be sealed.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party in London, Sarnia, and Windsor.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with ballots segregated by city due to a dispute over whether there should be separate bargaining units for each location.

The Board also directed that ballots of service technicians be segregated pending resolution of their inclusion in the unit.

The applicant, Canadian Health Care Workers, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Little Folks Ltd. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant employer filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, raising concerns about a representation vote and alleging an unfair labour practice by the union.

At a hearing in a related file, the employer withdrew the unfair labour practice allegation and agreed the balance of the application could be disposed of in accordance with the Board's decision in the related file.

Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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

The employer and intervenors alleged improper conduct by a union official and challenged the adequacy of the vote.

The Board found insufficient basis to order a new vote and concluded the allegations could not amount to an unfair labour practice.

A certificate was issued to the applicant union.

The applicant filed an application under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled hearing despite receiving notice.

After waiting more than the usual half-hour, the Board dismissed the application.

The applicant brought an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board regarding an employment standards matter.

Following a hearing, the Board dismissed the application for reasons given orally.

On agreement of the parties, no written reasons were provided.

The applicant sought a review of a refusal to issue an order to pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer.

The Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, in accordance with the parties' agreement.

The applicant sought a review of a refusal to issue an order to pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer, wherein the employer agreed to pay the applicant $4,600.

As the settlement resolved all issues in dispute, the Board terminated the application pursuant to section 69.1(5) of the Act.

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

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the disbursement of the $22,007.66 held in trust by the Director to the employer, the responding employees, and the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the administration fee, in accordance with the settlement.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a January 5, 2000 decision dismissing her duty of fair representation application under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board dismissed the request because it merely recited the facts of the original grievance without addressing the Board's decision, and it was filed well beyond the 20-day period provided by Rule 96 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.

The applicants submitted an application to the Ontario Labour Relations Board prior to the execution of Minutes of Settlement in related files.

Having regard to the terms of those Minutes of Settlement, the Board ordered the application terminated.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Agreement to resolve multiple applications and allegations before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board issued a consent order directing a representation vote for a specified bargaining unit of employees at Satisfied Brake Products Inc., giving them a choice between IWA Canada and the Satisfied Brake Products Employees Association, Local 101.

The order also resolved outstanding disciplinary matters by placing them on hold as grievances to be processed by the successful union after the vote.

The applicant employee sought review of an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an order for termination pay, alleging she was constructively dismissed after being intentionally pushed by the employer's owner, who was also her father.

The Board found that while the physical contact was not inadvertent, there was no intention to push or harm the applicant.

The owner had reached out to cause the applicant to look up during a heated dispute, causing her to fall backwards without injury.

The Board concluded this contact did not amount to a constructive dismissal and dismissed the application.