Stephen Raymond

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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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.

The applicant trade union requested the withdrawal of its applications against IKEA Canada Limited Partnership.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the files were withdrawn.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against the responding employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered a representation vote to be held on June 27, 2001, for all eligible employees of the Town of Midland Public Works Department.

Employees will choose between the applicant union and the intervenor union.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), the Board declared CUPE as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit of employees at the Algoma District Services Administration Board.

The bargaining rights held by other trade unions were terminated.

The Board considered competing applications for certification by the CAW and UFCW, as well as a termination application and an unfair labour practice complaint regarding employees at Coca-Cola's Brampton facility.

Finding that both unions had demonstrated the appearance of at least 40% support in their proposed bargaining units, the Board ordered a representation vote to determine the employees' choice of bargaining agent.

The Board deferred determination of a section 8.1 issue raised by the employer regarding the bargaining unit size.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant to be a trade union and determined it had established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, and directed that ballots cast by individuals in disputed positions (drivers, call takers, and dispatchers) be segregated pending further resolution.

The responding party employer brought a preliminary motion to dismiss the applicant union's unfair labour practice complaint due to delay.

The union alleged that four employees were terminated contrary to the Act, with the application filed between two and a half to eight months after the terminations.

The Board declined to exercise its discretion to dismiss the application for delay, noting the serious nature of the allegations involving termination of employment and the lack of actual prejudice to the employer.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application against the responding party union.

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

The applicants requested to withdraw their application against the responding party union.

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