Stephen Raymond

The applicant appealed an Inspector's Order.

Notice of the hearing was sent to the applicant, but the applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

Upon hearing the representations of the responding parties, the Board dismissed the appeal.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, Local 13571, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, Commercial Aluminum (1993) Limited.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave for the application to be withdrawn.

The applicant union and responding employer 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 application would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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

The applicant, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, The Valley and District Association for Community Living.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant sought to withdraw its application against the responding party.

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

The applicant employer brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the responding party union, the Board declared that the union does not represent the employees of the applicant.

Previously scheduled meeting and hearing dates were cancelled.

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

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application for decertification.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in opposition to the responding party union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification regarding a unit of instructors and assistant instructors employed by the responding school board.

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

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

The applicant union requested production of documents from the responding parties and submitted that the responding parties may not have filed all material upon which they intend to rely.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding parties to respond to the applicant's request by July 19, 2000, after which any outstanding issues could be referred to the Board.

The Board also reminded the responding parties of their obligation to file all documents they intend to rely on at least ten days prior to the 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 the parties agreeing on the appropriate bargaining unit, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a certificate to the union.

Previously scheduled meeting and hearing dates were cancelled.

The employer, General Motors, notified the Board that it received an incomplete copy of the application, missing every other page.

The Board directed the applicant to re-serve the application on the employer and granted the employer a ten-day extension to file its response from the date of re-service.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite forty percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at the F.W. Schumacher Residence.

The responding party disputed the bargaining unit description and the number of employees, and filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Two intervenor unions claimed they already represented the employees in question.

Additionally, the responding party filed a section 69 application alleging a sale of the business.

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

The Board ordered a representation vote but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending the resolution of the intervenors' claims and the sale of business application.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board previously ordered a representation vote to be taken on June 21, 2000.

Due to an administrative error by the Board, the vote did not take place.

The Board ordered the representation vote to be rescheduled to June 23, 2000, with all other arrangements remaining as previously set out.

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

Pursuant to section 63(17) of the Act, the Board issued a declaration terminating the union's bargaining rights.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent bus drivers employed by 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 majority of the Board found that the numerical difference was not significant and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be taken.

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 served the application on the responding parties, but no notice of posting was filed with the Board.

The Board directed a Labour Relations Officer to post the notices and serve an additional copy of the application on the responding parties.

The terminal date for the application was extended to June 30, 2000.