Stephen Raymond

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party proposed two bargaining units and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, contending the applicant's proposed unit was not appropriate.

The Board found that because the responding party agreed with the union's estimate of the number of persons in the proposed unit, the section 8.1 notice was not proper.

Finding sufficient membership support, the Board directed a representation vote, with ballots for employees of one of the legal entities to be segregated and counted separately pending a final determination on the appropriate bargaining unit.

A dissenting member would have delayed the vote or sealed the ballot box until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The responding party union requested an extension of time limits for filing a response.

Although no reasons or specific length were provided in the request, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted a seven-day extension.

The applicant requested to withdraw her application against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union filed an application for a declaration concerning the status of a successor trade union.

The Board noted that the employer did not complete the Confirmation of Posting until after the original terminal date had passed.

To ensure employees had a full opportunity to participate, the Board extended the terminal date to October 12, 2000.

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The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.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 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, Service Employees International Union, Local 478, by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration.

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, Service Employees International Union, Local 478, by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding employer disputed the proposed bargaining unit and argued the application was untimely due to a subsisting collective agreement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that there was sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board directed that a vote be held but ordered the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the timeliness and bargaining unit disputes.

One Board Member dissented, arguing no vote should be held until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The responding party requested that the Board dismiss the applicant's allegations for failing to disclose a prima facie case and for irrelevance.

The Board declined to dismiss the application, noting that the responding party failed to identify which specific parts of the applicant's voluminous materials it found objectionable.

The Board refused to undertake a review of all materials without such clarification.

The Board extended the terminal date for employees to file material in an application for a declaration concerning the status of a successor trade union, as the employer did not complete the Confirmation of Posting until after the original terminal date had passed.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were 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 future applications by the applicant for the same bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees.

The intervenor argued the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process because the applicant's parent union had recently lost a representation vote for the same employees in a prior application, for which a final decision was still pending.

The Board exercised its discretion under section 111(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to postpone consideration of the subsequent application until a final decision was issued in the prior application.

The application was adjourned sine die.

A dissenting board member would have dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

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 Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the numerical difference between the parties' estimates was not significant.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that the vote should be delayed or the ballot box sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved at a hearing.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with ballots for full-time and part-time employees segregated.

The applicant requested an adjournment sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, adjourning the matter for a period not exceeding one year.

If neither party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote.

However, due to the responding party's allegations of employer violations of the Act, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed until further direction.

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

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support of at least forty percent in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with a direction that ballots cast by individuals in disputed registered nurse positions be segregated.

The applicant union filed an application for certification and an unfair labour practice complaint against the responding party employer.

Following a representation vote where the union failed to obtain more than fifty percent of the ballots cast, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the certification application and imposed a one-year bar on future applications.

The unfair labour practice complaint was withdrawn pursuant to Minutes of Settlement between the parties.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.

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

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant had initially been awarded a position following a grievance, but was subsequently removed when a more senior employee successfully grieved for the same position.

The Board dismissed the application without a full hearing, finding that the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case.

The Board concluded that the union was merely protecting negotiated seniority rights and did not act in a manner that was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.