Stephen Raymond

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 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 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, 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Having regard to the settlement reached by the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.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, 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The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.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 applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

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 of the application.

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

The applicant union filed an application against the responding party employer.

Having regard to the agreement of 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 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 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.

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 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 trade union filed an application 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 numerical difference between the parties was not significant and that the applicant established sufficient membership support to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and established the voting constituency, with disputed positions to be segregated.

The Board received a Request for Reconsideration seeking to revoke or vary its decision to order a representation vote.

The requesting party argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to order the vote.

The Board noted that its jurisdiction under section 66 of the Act was raised during the hearing.

The Board confirmed its previous decision that a test of employee wishes was appropriate and that holding the vote would have no impact on the parties' rights to pursue their positions in the pending applications.

The Request for Reconsideration was denied.

The applicant sought a declaration under section 114(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 that the Administration Officer is not an employee under the Act.

The responding party withdrew its objection to the exclusion request.

The Board granted the application and declared that the Administration Officer is not an employee pursuant to the Act.

The employer requested an extension of time to file its response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the time limit for filing the response to August 10, 2001.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the time limit for filing the response to August 10, 2001.

The applicant submitted a handwritten letter attaching a copy of a previously submitted illegible letter.

The Board found that the applicant failed to comply with its prior decision directing him to provide a printed or typed document setting out the union's alleged violations.

The Board ordered the applicant to comply by July 30, 2001, failing which the application would be dismissed.