Stephen Raymond

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The responding party employer requested the application be withdrawn because the proposed bargaining unit lacked a geographic scope.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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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 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 applicants filed an application against Maplehurst Corrections Centre and the Ministry of Labour.

On agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, to allow the parties to discuss the subject matter at an upcoming meeting.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board addressed preliminary matters in a Ministerial reference regarding the appointment of a conciliation officer and a related unfair labour practice application alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation.

The Board consolidated the matters on consent, directed the applicants to serve a proper Notice of Constitutional Question, and deferred a ruling on an intervenor's standing.

To expedite the proceedings, the Board directed the parties to provide legal argument and identify proposed evidence on whether a trade union may unilaterally abandon its bargaining rights and the implications of such abandonment.

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.

The Board received a letter from an individual taking issue with various actions of the applicant union and requesting more notice of its actions.

The Board noted that the trusteeship of the local would expire on December 31, 2000, as the union had not requested an extension.

The Board found that the union's steps to end the trusteeship were appropriate and declined to review the matter further at this time.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against his union after it declined to grieve his termination.

The applicant had been subject to a last chance agreement that stipulated any violation of company rules would result in termination without a grievance.

Following a harassment complaint, the employer terminated the applicant.

The union concluded the rule had been violated and declined to grieve.

The Board dismissed the application, finding no allegations of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union, and noting an unexplained two-year delay in filing the application.

The applicant, The Crown in Right of Ontario, requested to withdraw its application against The Professional Engineers and Architects of the Ontario Public Service (PEGO).

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

The applicant union and responding employer met with a Labour Relations Officer and agreed to adjourn the scheduled pre-hearing conference.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, noting that a related file would proceed as scheduled.

The employer brought an application alleging the union failed to comply with a settlement of an unfair labour practice complaint.

The union brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the application because the written Memorandum of Settlement was not signed by its representative.

The Board granted the union's motion and dismissed the employer's application, noting that section 96(7) of the Labour Relations Act requires a settlement to be signed by the parties to be enforceable under that section.

However, the Board adjourned the union's underlying unfair labour practice complaint to hear legal argument on whether an oral settlement had been reached, assuming the union's version of facts that the employer's counsel had added an inaccurate term to the written draft which was subsequently removed.

The applicant, a newly amalgamated municipality, and the responding unions sought an order directing a representation vote to determine the bargaining agent for certain outside employees.

The Board issued an interim order under subsection 37(7) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, directing a representation vote to be held on November 15, 2000, based on the agreed-upon bargaining unit description and employee list.

The applicant and responding parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

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

The applicants filed an application alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, concerning the amalgamation of union locals.

The Board requested representations on whether the matter should be dismissed.

The Board found that section 74 only applies to the representation of employees in their employment relationship with an employer, not to internal trade union matters such as the amalgamation of locals.

As there could be no violation of section 74 even if the allegations were true, the application was dismissed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a decision amending paragraph 16 of its previous decision dated October 11, 2000.

The amendment addresses a dispute between the parties regarding the appropriate bargaining unit and whether certain employees work in the food service or vending operations.

The Board directed that any individual holding a disputed position who wishes to cast a ballot may do so by identifying themselves as occupying a disputed position.

Their ballot will be segregated and not counted until the Board orders otherwise or the parties agree.