Stephen Raymond

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations 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.

The Board directed a representation vote for the employees of the responding party at the Ontario Police College, with disputed ballots from students to be segregated.

The applicant requested that the matter be heard expeditiously.

The Board directed that a copy of the applicant's letter and particulars be sent to the responding party, and referred the issue of an expeditious hearing to the Registrar.

The applicant union requested a one-year extension of its trusteeship over Local 1883 pursuant to section 89(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board directed the applicant to notify the affected members of the request and provided the members until June 30, 2000, to submit any opposition in writing.

The Board granted an interim extension of the trusteeship until July 31, 2000, pending receipt of submissions.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of registered and graduate practical nurses employed by the Victorian Order of Nurses Durham Branch.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent 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 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, Jean Jordan, sought to withdraw her application against the Ontario Nurses' Association.

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

The applicant filed an application against the responding party union, with the employer participating as an intervenor.

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

The applicant trade union brought to the Board's attention an earlier decision confirming its status.

The Board issued this decision to confirm that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding union requested particulars of the applicant's allegations.

The Board directed the applicant to provide the requested particulars by June 23, 2000.

The Board noted it would review the matter, including the union's request to dismiss the application, upon receipt of the particulars.

The Board also directed that the matter be scheduled to be heard together with a related file.

The Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation requested that the Board order the applicant to provide particulars of her allegations.

The Board found the request appropriate and directed the applicant to provide specific details regarding who was contacted, when, and what responses were received in relation to paragraphs 45 and 62 of her application.

The time limits for the responding parties' responses were extended accordingly.

The applicant filed an application but failed to serve it on the responding party trade union and the employer as directed by the Board.

The Board ordered the applicant to serve the other parties and file proof of service by June 23, 2000, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant filed an application against the respondent union.

The intervenor railway company submitted a letter asserting that the Ontario Labour Relations Board lacks jurisdiction over the matter.

The Board noted that the employer may be correct and directed the applicant to provide submissions on the jurisdictional issue by a specified date, failing which the application would be dismissed.

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and determined the appropriate bargaining unit based on the parties' agreement.

Finding that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union, the Board directed that a representation vote be held.

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

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

Despite a dispute over the bargaining unit description and the inclusion of students, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with disputed ballots to be segregated.

The applicant applied to the Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The responding employer 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 Board found that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote, with disputed positions to be segregated.

One Board member dissented, arguing that the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision to correct a typographical error in a previous decision dated June 6, 2000.

The date of July 13, 2000 in paragraph 3 of that decision was corrected to read July 7, 2000.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of taxi owners and drivers operating in the City of Ottawa for the responding party.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Board found that at least 40% of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The responding party disputed the bargaining unit description and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with the ballot box to be sealed pending resolution of the disputes regarding the bargaining unit composition and the applicant's trade union status.

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 Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application.

A certificate was ordered to issue for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and permitted the application to be withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The responding party was directed to post a copy of the decision for five days.