Stephen Raymond

The applicant union filed an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

On consent of the parties, the Board extended the time limit for the responding parties to file their response to November 29, 2000.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the responding party.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast 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 certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

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 certified the union as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees at the responding party hospital.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and the resolution of all representations, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a final decision granting the certification.

A certificate was ordered to issue to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 seeking a declaration that the responding party union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The union filed a response stating it no longer wished to represent the employees.

Pursuant to section 63(17) of the Act, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's day care centre.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

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

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

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 Board directed that a representation vote be taken and that ballots of disputed part-time employees be segregated.

Board Member J.A. Rundle dissented, arguing that the ballot box should be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act because the employer disagreed with the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the unit.

The Ontario Nurses' Association filed an application for certification.

The intervenor, OPSEU, requested that the application be held in abeyance because it had filed a prior application for certification encompassing the same employees.

The Board agreed and ordered the application held in abeyance pursuant to section 111(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and section 28(2) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The Board received a letter requesting an adjournment of the consultation scheduled for December 7, 2000.

The Board directed any other party with submissions on the adjournment request to file them in writing by November 28, 2000.

The Board issued a consent order extending the deadline for the responding party to file its Response to November 24, 2000.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

Following a representation vote where the majority of both full-time and part-time employees voted in opposition to the responding party union, the parties entered into a Memorandum of Settlement.

The Board declared that the responding party no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

The applicant union filed an application for certification to represent employees of Carrol Health Care in London, Ontario.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and determined that it had established sufficient membership support to warrant a representation vote.

Despite a dispute over the exact composition of the bargaining unit, the Board directed that a representation vote be held, with ballots from disputed positions to be segregated.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The responding party employer requested the application be withdrawn because the proposed bargaining unit lacked a geographic scope.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board held that a bargaining unit must contain a geographic scope to be appropriate.

As the proposed unit did not, the application was dismissed without a bar to a further application.

The responding party union requested an extension of time to file its response to the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the time for filing the response and any intervention to November 22, 2000.

The applicant union filed an application against the responding hospital.

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

If no party requests to proceed within that time, the application will be deemed terminated.

The Ontario Nurses' Association filed an application against St. Joseph's Hospital, with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union intervening.

On the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

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

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

Based on the application material, the Board found that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees.

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

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

The applicant employee was suspended for three days following a workplace altercation.

The union filed a grievance and processed it through all four steps of the grievance procedure, but ultimately decided not to take the matter to arbitration.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint, alleging bad faith based on statements made by union officials during the disciplinary process.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding that while some statements by union officials were inappropriate, there was no evidence of bad faith or a violation of the union's duty of fair representation.