Stephen Raymond

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 as the bargaining agent for 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 applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a unit of office and clerical employees at Cambridge Memorial Hospital.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no outstanding issues between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant served the responding party outside the time limits required by the Board's earlier letter.

The Board relieved against the time limits and directed that the application be processed, referring the matter to the Registrar.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

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

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees and active volunteers of the responding party ambulance service.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with segregated ballots for disputed supervisory positions.

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

Following a representation vote, the Board found that not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were cast in opposition to the responding party.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Board dismissed the application and ordered the destruction of the ballots after 30 days.

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 majority of the Board found that the numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant had established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote and directed that ballots of individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

One Board member dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) required the ballot box to be sealed.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

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.

The applicant sought to withdraw his application against the responding party union.

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

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board cancelled a previously scheduled representation vote.

Based on the agreement of the parties, the Board directed that a new representation vote be taken for the agreed-upon voting constituency of employees at the Apple Hill Quarry.

The Board provided directions for the vote, posting of notices, and the filing of representations regarding any remaining disputes.

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

The responding party disputed the union'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 between the parties' estimates was not significant and that the union had established sufficient membership support for a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote and directed that the ballots be counted.

A dissenting Board member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.