Stephen Raymond

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Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board received a letter from the applicant trade union.

The Board directed the responding employer to file any submissions in relation to the letter by a specified deadline.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with disputed ballots to be segregated.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent parking attendants at the responding party's theatre.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate.

Having determined that the applicant established sufficient membership support, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent medical laboratory technologists, technicians, and assistants at the responding hospital.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held and established the voting constituency, with provisions for segregated ballots for disputed positions.

The applicant filed materials in response to a previous Board decision.

The Board found that the submitted documents, particularly those setting out the applicant's position, were not entirely legible.

The Board directed the applicant to deliver a printed or typed document detailing the alleged violations of the Act by the responding union.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, requested to withdraw its application against the responding party, Matcor Automotive Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union brought an application under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a prior Board decision declaring the responding employers to be a single employer and a successor employer, a representation vote was held.

A majority of votes were cast in favour of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 255.

The Board declared that CUPE Local 255 represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The employer appealed an Order to Pay awarding termination pay to an employee.

The employee had submitted a letter of resignation with two weeks' notice.

Following a disagreement, the employer told the employee to 'go', prompting her to leave immediately.

The Board found that the employer's actions constituted a termination of employment, entitling the employee to termination pay under the Employment Standards Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the responding party employer failed to bargain in good faith.

The union argued that the employer bargained the scope clause to impasse and sought to strip the collective agreement of its substantive terms, replacing them with a cash payment enforceable only through individual commercial agreements.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that while the scope clause was not bargained to impasse, the employer's attempt to remove substantive provisions from the collective agreement and replace them with an unenforceable cash payment violated the duty to bargain in good faith.

The Board ordered the parties to return to the bargaining table.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's decision refusing to award public holiday pay.

The applicant provided uncontradicted evidence that he worked on December 24, 1999, entitling him to public holiday pay for December 25 and 26, 1999, at $100 per day.

The employer did not appear at the hearing.

The Board found the applicant entitled to $200 in public holiday pay and ordered the employer to pay this amount to the Director of Employment Standards in trust.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, requested to withdraw its application against the responding party, Acier Leroux Inc./Leroux Steel Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.