Stephen Raymond

The applicant requested to withdraw its application via a letter from its solicitors.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board acknowledged the request and ordered the application withdrawn.

The Board received a request for reconsideration regarding a bargaining unit description.

The Board noted that the revised bargaining unit described by the trade union appeared to be an exact parallel to the existing full-time unit.

The Board directed the Town to file its response in accordance with the July 20, 2001 direction, noting any continuing difficulties with the bargaining unit description in that response.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of office, clerical, and technical employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no remaining issues in dispute between the parties, the Board issued a final decision without a hearing.

A certificate was ordered to issue to the applicant.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of professional student services personnel employed by the responding school board.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with all outstanding issues resolved between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a certificate to the applicant without a hearing.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, but did not dispute the applicant's estimate of employees or propose a different bargaining unit.

The majority of the Board dismissed the section 8.1 issue and directed a representation vote without sealing the ballot box.

The dissenting Board member would have directed the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

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

The responding party proposed a different bargaining unit and gave 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 for a representation vote.

The Board directed a representation vote based on the voting constituency in the most recent collective agreement.

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

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 the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support for a representation vote.

The Board directed a representation vote to be taken.

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification and requested an interim order regarding voting arrangements, expressing concern over workplace video surveillance.

The employer disputed the bargaining unit description and the number of employees, giving notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found sufficient membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board directed the vote to be held at the workplace, instructing the returning officer to ensure ballot secrecy.

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

The responding party requested clarification of the bargaining unit description proposed by the applicant union.

The applicant provided a letter clarifying the description to parallel the full-time unit provisions.

The Board noted the clarification and extended the time limit for the responding party to file its response.

The applicant filed a matter against C.A.W. Local 27.

The responding party indicated there was no prima facie case but did not file a response or explain its view.

The Board directed the responding party to file a statement explaining the basis for its conclusion.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification for a bargaining unit of maintenance and service employees at the Waterloo Catholic District School Board.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and the resolution of subsequent representations, the Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a certificate to the applicant.

The intervenor requested a delay of a representation vote, alleging faulty service of the application and noting that its president and 10% of the workforce were on summer vacation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the request, finding no prejudice from the alleged faulty service since the intervenor fully responded.

The Board also held that summer vacations do not constitute exceptional circumstances warranting a delay of the vote.

The applicant trade union withdrew its application in Board File 0277-01-U. The Board cancelled the Labour Relations Officer's meeting scheduled for Board File 0278-01-U and noted a new date would be set.

The applicant, Ontario Public Service Employees Union, requested to withdraw its application against Windsor Regional Hospital and Service Employees Union, Local 210.

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

The Board noted that no correspondence had been received from any party since its decision of October 25, 2000.

The Board ordered that the application would be adjourned sine die unless either party submitted a satisfactory explanation by August 10, 2001, as to why it should not be adjourned.

The applicant filed an application against the responding trade union.

The Board previously directed the applicant to provide submissions explaining how the union violated the Act by denying her son participation in her appeal pursuant to its by-laws.

The applicant failed to provide any submissions by the deadline.

Consequently, the Board exercised its discretion not to inquire further and dismissed the application.

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

Following a representation vote in which 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.

Previously scheduled meeting and hearing dates were cancelled.

The applicant, Ecuhome Corporation, filed an application against the Canadian Union of Public Employees.

Having regard to the settlement reached by the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.

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 Board received a Request for Reconsideration dated July 4, 2001.

By letter dated July 10, 2001, the request was withdrawn.

The Board dismissed the Request for Reconsideration.