Stephen Raymond

The applicant filed an application against the responding party union, with the employer intervening.

Having regard to a letter from the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application.

The applicant, a former professional hockey goaltender, filed an application alleging the respondent union violated its duty of fair representation by withdrawing his grievance regarding unpaid salary.

The respondent and intervenor raised a preliminary objection to the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant's employment was entirely in the United States and lacked a substantial connection to Ontario.

The fact that the union's head office is in Ontario did not confer jurisdiction.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The parties subsequently reached a settlement.

Having regard to the settlement, the Board ordered the application terminated.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The union requested that the Board dismiss the application for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the union's motion, finding that the allegations, if left unanswered, could lead to a finding of a violation of the Act.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions addressing the union's assertion that the requested remedy had already been provided and responding to the union's factual assertions.

The parties requested an adjournment of the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding the handling and settlement of his grievance.

The Board found it had no jurisdiction to inquire into events occurring prior to January 1, 1998, as the statutory amendments granting jurisdiction were not retroactive.

Regarding the remaining allegations, the Board exercised its discretion not to inquire further, finding that the union acted reasonably in attempting to resolve the matter when the arbitrator was unavailable and in ultimately accepting the employer's final offer over the applicant's objections.

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

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant filed an unfair representation complaint against the trade union.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application for delay, noting the events occurred by April 2000 but the application was not completed until October 2001.

The Board directed the applicant to confirm the date of the events and provide an explanation for the delay before ruling on the union's motion to dismiss.

Following a municipal amalgamation, the Board held a hearing to determine whether 40 percent of the employees in the agreed bargaining unit were unrepresented by a bargaining agent immediately before the changeover date.

The Board found that 17 out of 43 employees (39.5%) were unrepresented.

Because the Board does not round up percentages, the 40 percent threshold was not met.

Consequently, the representation vote ballot would only include the choice between the two competing unions, OPSEU and UAW, without a 'no union' option.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding trade union brought a motion to dismiss the application on the grounds that it related to internal union constitution matters, bargaining proposals, and sought incomprehensible relief.

The Board directed the applicant to file submissions in response to the motion to dismiss before making a determination.

The applicant filed a complaint against the responding unions.

Following a consultation, the Board issued a procedural direction on consent.

The applicant was directed to provide further particulars and a draft agreed statement of facts by December 31, 2001.

The responding parties were directed to respond and provide documents by March 12, 2002.

The matter was scheduled to continue on April 16 and 17, 2002.

In a proceeding under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, the Ontario Labour Relations Board received correspondence from the employer and OPSEU regarding the number of employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board held that it would not determine the percentage of unrepresented employees until the parties agreed on, or the Board decided, the total number of employees in the bargaining unit.

The employer asserted the number was 44.

The Board noted that if the unrepresented percentage is 40 percent or greater, it would then consider OPSEU's argument regarding its membership evidence.

The applicant sought to withdraw her applications against the Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie, the Ministry of Labour, and the Service Employees International Union, Local 204, following an agreement between the parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board noted the agreement, permitted the withdrawal, and ordered that the settlement is enforceable as an Order of the Board.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether 40 per cent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit were not represented by a bargaining agent immediately before the changeover date, pursuant to section 23(5) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

As the necessary information was not available, the Board directed the employer to produce payroll records and scheduled a further hearing and representation vote.

The National Hockey League (NHL) and the National Hockey League Players' Association (NHLPA) raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction to hear the applicant's case.

The Board directed that the preliminary objection be heard and determined prior to any inquiry into the merits of the application, and rescheduled the hearing dates accordingly.

The applicant union brought an application under the Employment Standards Act claiming that the responding parties, who took over portions of the food services contract at Pearson International Airport from the predecessor employer, were successor employers liable for termination pay.

The responding parties argued that the building owner (GTAA) was a federal undertaking, rendering the provincial successor employer provisions inapplicable, and raised several other statutory defenses.

The Board held that the provincial law applied as it did not impair the federal undertaking, found that the responding parties were successor employers providing services to the building owner, and concluded that the employees were entitled to termination pay from the successors despite having received notice from the predecessor.

The applicant union brought an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding party employer violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by terminating the employment of a striking employee.

The employee had thrown altered fireworks onto the employer's property during a lawful strike, causing a police bomb squad response and a highway closure.

The Board found no evidence of anti-union animus to support a violation of sections 72 or 76.

Applying the non-motive test for section 70, the Board concluded that the termination did not interfere with any protected union activity, as the employer's decision was based solely on the employee's dangerous conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application via a letter from counsel.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.

The parties reached a settlement regarding two applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Having regard to the correspondence received from the parties, the Board noted that the applications were settled.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer, alleging a violation of a previous settlement.

The parties reached a memorandum of settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer.

The settlement included retiring allowances for three individuals and provisions regarding future employment applications and bargaining for a renewal collective agreement.

The Board issued an order incorporating the terms of the memorandum of settlement.