Stephen Raymond

The responding party raised an objection to the union's application pursuant to section 7(9) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the responding party did not provide sufficient specificity, particularly failing to cite the Board File number from the earlier application.

The Board deferred the resolution of the objection to the panel hearing the matter.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it appeared to have the requisite membership support.

The Board directed a representation vote.

The intervenor raised objections based on alleged unfair labour practices and related proceedings before the Superior Court of Justice and the Canadian Labour Congress, requesting that the vote not be held or the ballot box be sealed.

The Board noted that it had previously declined to seal ballot boxes or adjourn proceedings in similar applications involving these parties, and directed the vote to proceed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board addressed two procedural requests in related files.

The Board noted the union's correspondence amending its application to add a responding party, leaving any issues arising from the addition to the hearing panel.

The Board also granted a request by the employer and an individual responding party to extend the time limit for filing their response to October 11, 2000.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of para-medical technical employees at Canadian Blood Services.

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

The Board found the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held.

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 proposed a different unit, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate but could not be absolutely certain that the 40 percent membership threshold was met in that unit.

The Board ordered a representation vote and directed that the ballot box be sealed pending resolution of the dispute.

A dissenting Board member agreed that the ballot box must be sealed under section 8.1(4) of the Act.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

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

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 applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party proposed a different bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but agreed with the union's estimate of the number of persons in the unit.

The Board found the applicant established sufficient membership support and ordered a representation vote.

A dissenting Board member argued that the vote should not take place or the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved at a hearing.

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

A representation vote was held, but the applicant failed to obtain more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, cancelled previously set hearing dates, and imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

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

The 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 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 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 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 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.