Stephen Raymond

In a proceeding under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, the Ontario Labour Relations Board received correspondence from the employer and OPSEU regarding the number of employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board held that it would not determine the percentage of unrepresented employees until the parties agreed on, or the Board decided, the total number of employees in the bargaining unit.

The employer asserted the number was 44.

The Board noted that if the unrepresented percentage is 40 percent or greater, it would then consider OPSEU's argument regarding its membership evidence.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether 40 per cent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit were not represented by a bargaining agent immediately before the changeover date, pursuant to section 23(5) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

As the necessary information was not available, the Board directed the employer to produce payroll records and scheduled a further hearing and representation vote.

The applicant sought to withdraw her applications against the Royal Victoria Hospital of Barrie, the Ministry of Labour, and the Service Employees International Union, Local 204, following an agreement between the parties.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board noted the agreement, permitted the withdrawal, and ordered that the settlement is enforceable as an Order of the Board.

The National Hockey League (NHL) and the National Hockey League Players' Association (NHLPA) raised a preliminary objection regarding the Board's jurisdiction to hear the applicant's case.

The Board directed that the preliminary objection be heard and determined prior to any inquiry into the merits of the application, and rescheduled the hearing dates accordingly.

The applicant union brought an application under the Employment Standards Act claiming that the responding parties, who took over portions of the food services contract at Pearson International Airport from the predecessor employer, were successor employers liable for termination pay.

The responding parties argued that the building owner (GTAA) was a federal undertaking, rendering the provincial successor employer provisions inapplicable, and raised several other statutory defenses.

The Board held that the provincial law applied as it did not impair the federal undertaking, found that the responding parties were successor employers providing services to the building owner, and concluded that the employees were entitled to termination pay from the successors despite having received notice from the predecessor.

The applicant union brought an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding party employer violated the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by terminating the employment of a striking employee.

The employee had thrown altered fireworks onto the employer's property during a lawful strike, causing a police bomb squad response and a highway closure.

The Board found no evidence of anti-union animus to support a violation of sections 72 or 76.

Applying the non-motive test for section 70, the Board concluded that the termination did not interfere with any protected union activity, as the employer's decision was based solely on the employee's dangerous conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The parties reached a settlement regarding two applications before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Having regard to the correspondence received from the parties, the Board noted that the applications were settled.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application via a letter from counsel.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the employer, alleging a violation of a previous settlement.

The parties reached a memorandum of settlement with the assistance of a Labour Relations Officer.

The settlement included retiring allowances for three individuals and provisions regarding future employment applications and bargaining for a renewal collective agreement.

The Board issued an order incorporating the terms of the memorandum of settlement.

The applicant failed to file a Certificate of Delivery by the deadline set in a previous Board decision.

As a result, the application was dismissed.

The applicant requested an adjournment at the outset of a consultation due to medical reasons, providing a medical note.

The respondent trade union and intervenor employer opposed the request.

The Board granted the adjournment, noting that a consultation should take place in the presence of the applicant and that there was no significant prejudice to the parties.

The Board also directed the parties to file written submissions on whether the application sets out a prima facie violation of the Act.

The applicant filed applications against General Motors of Canada Limited and the National Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and its Local 27.

Having regard to the settlement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the applications withdrawn.

The Board received a letter from counsel for the intervenor advising that the applications had been settled.

The Board directed counsel for the applicants to advise the Board as to the status of the applications as a result of the settlement.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party trade union requested that the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie violation of the Act.

The Board directed that the applicant be afforded an opportunity to respond to the union's motion before the Board disposes of it, and set a timeline for submissions.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent food and beverage workers employed by the responding party.

The Board previously determined that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate will issue to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party trade union brought a motion to dismiss the application on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction, excessive delay, and failure to make out a prima facie case.

The Board deferred ruling on the motion to dismiss and directed the applicant to file submissions responding to the trade union's motion within one month.

The applicant submitted a letter to the Ontario Labour Relations Board requesting a determination based solely on the filed materials.

The Board declined to determine the issue on the materials alone, noting that a consultation was already scheduled.

The consultation was ordered to proceed as scheduled unless the application is withdrawn or resolved.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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 Board found that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and directed a representation vote, with ballots for disputed maintenance employee positions to be segregated.

The responding party requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Board granted the request, extending the time limit for filing the response and any intervention to August 24, 2001.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was held, but the union failed to obtain more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and noted the potential one-year bar on subsequent applications under section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act.