Stephen Raymond

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor, the Canada Hair Cloth Employees’ Association, by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the declaration.

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Based on the agreement of the parties regarding the appropriate bargaining unit and the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

The applicant, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Construction Council of Ontario, requested to withdraw its application against the responding party, Montana Electric Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

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

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application against the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

A representation vote was held, and more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in opposition to the union.

No statement of desire to make representations was filed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees at The Village Health Care Centre, who were currently represented by the intervenor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held, with voters asked to choose between the applicant and the intervenor.

The applicant union filed an application for certification to represent employees of Value Village Stores Inc. in Whitby.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Based on the agreement of the parties regarding the appropriate bargaining unit and the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found the numerical difference was not significant and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed a representation vote.

A dissenting board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

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

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate but could not be absolutely certain that the union had the requisite 40 percent membership support.

Consequently, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken and that the ballot box be sealed pending further order or agreement of the parties.

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

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The responding party employer sought to dismiss the application, alleging it was not served with all components, but failed to specify the missing components or any prejudice.

The Board declined to dismiss the application.

As there was a dispute regarding the appropriate bargaining unit and the number of employees, the Board could not be certain that the applicant had the requisite 40 percent support in its proposed unit.

Consequently, the Board ordered a representation vote but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending resolution of the disputes.

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

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate but could not be absolutely certain that 40 percent or more of the individuals in the unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and that the ballot box be sealed pending further order or agreement.

The Board declined the responding party's request to delay the vote due to a federal election.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification to represent employees of Northern Cables Inc. Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the union.

A related unfair labour practice complaint brought by the employer was withdrawn at its request.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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.

The Board imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of technicians employed by the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent 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 final decision without a hearing.

The Board found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

A certificate was ordered to issue to the applicant.

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 it appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in its proposed bargaining unit.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and proposed a different bargaining unit, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The majority of the Board found the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and ordered a representation vote without sealing the ballot box.

A dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to subsection 8.1(4) of the Act.

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 union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found the application timely and that not less than forty per cent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

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

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant established sufficient membership support for a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency.