Stephen Raymond

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where 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 of employees at the responding party's home.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant sought a review of an Employment Standards Officer's Order to Pay, claiming additional unpaid wages, termination pay, and vacation pay.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing despite notice.

The Board accepted the applicant's evidence regarding her employment and the amounts owed.

The Board ordered the employer to pay the increased amount of $5,481.86 for the applicant, as well as $1,624.59 for another employee who did not dispute her original order but had not been paid.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of part-time employees and students at the responding party's home.

Following a representation vote where more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant requested to withdraw its applications against the responding party via a letter from counsel.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the applications were withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the responding party at a specific location.

Following a representation vote where 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 found the bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

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 but could not be certain that 40 per cent or more of the individuals in the unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with the ballot box sealed until the Board orders otherwise or the parties agree.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote directed by the Board, not more than 50% of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

As a result, the Board dismissed the application and noted the potential application of the one-year bar under section 10(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for any subsequent certification applications.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application.

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

The solicitor for CUPE requested an extension of the time limit for filing an intervention.

The Board granted the request, extending the time limit for two weeks until June 19, 2001.

The Board consented to an agreed schedule for the filing of materials in this matter, as set out in correspondence from the responding party's solicitor.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application via a letter dated May 30, 2001.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn with leave.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees.

The applicant alleged that the National Hockey League Players Association violated section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Following a consultation, the Board determined that there were substantive facts in dispute and issues of credibility.

The Board directed that a hearing be held de novo and provided the National Hockey League with an opportunity to intervene.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act, claiming unpaid vacation pay for 1998 and 1999.

The employer failed to appear at the hearing.

The Board found the applicant was entitled to the claimed vacation pay and amended the Order to Pay, adding $2,400.00 for a total of $3,598.64.

The applicant union requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision, arguing the Board failed to answer whether a collective agreement was ratified in accordance with the Act.

The Board dismissed the request, noting its prior decision explicitly stated the collective agreement was ratified and the vote complied with the Act.

The applicant alleged that the trade union violated its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to pursue compensation for the period between her agreed reinstatement date and the date of the arbitration award.

The Board exercised its discretion not to inquire further into the application, finding that the union did not violate the Act by waiting for the arbitrator to issue his award, and noting that the applicant herself took no steps to return to work or contact the union during that period.

The application was dismissed.