Timothy W. Sargeant

The applicant filed an application for religious exemption from paying union dues pursuant to section 52 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party trade union did not object to the application, which related to a first collective agreement.

The Board granted the application, declaring that the employee is not required to join the union or pay dues, provided equivalent amounts are remitted to a mutually agreed charitable organization.

In an application alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the employer advised that it had not received certain required documents.

The Board directed the applicants to deliver the specified materials to the employer's counsel within 10 days, after which the employer would have 10 days to file an intervention.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent part-time employees at Sault Area Hospitals.

The intervenor union objected, alleging unfair labour practices, lack of sufficient membership evidence, and that the application was untimely under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board found that the applicant had established the requisite 40 percent membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board directed that a vote be held but ordered the ballot box sealed pending a final determination on the timeliness issue.

One Board Member dissented, arguing that timeliness is a threshold issue that must be decided before ordering a vote.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at the responding party's nursing home.

The 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.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, dismissing the intervenor's requests to dismiss the application or seal the ballot box based on alleged unfair labour practices and procedural breaches.

The Board granted a request by counsel for Loblaws Supermarkets Limited for an extension of time until September 7, 2000, to file an intervention in the matter.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that it appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

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 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.

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

The applicant sought to withdraw her application against the Service Employees International Union, Local 220.

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

The applicant 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 40% of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote.

Although the employer filed a section 8.1 notice disagreeing with the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the bargaining unit, the Board declined to seal the ballot box, finding the 40% threshold was met regardless of which estimate was used.

One Board member dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) requires the ballot box to be sealed when such notice is given.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Sault Area Hospitals.

The intervenor union raised several objections, including allegations of unfair labour practices, breach of a court order, breach of the Canadian Labour Congress constitution, lack of 40% membership evidence, and untimeliness under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitration Act.

The Board dismissed the objections regarding the court order, constitution, and membership evidence, finding that the applicant had established the requisite 40% support.

The Board ordered a representation vote but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a determination on the timeliness issue.

Board Member Rundle dissented, arguing that timeliness is a threshold issue that must be decided before ordering a vote.

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

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

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

With the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for certification.

Pursuant to an agreement between the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application under section 8.1(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties agreed that no statutory bar would be imposed on future certification applications under section 10(4) of the Act.

The applicants filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by refusing to file a grievance.

The dispute centered on the interpretation of the collective agreement regarding Scheduled Paid Absence (SPA) during a three-day temporary layoff.

The union maintained that SPA could only be rescheduled in weekly periods, while the applicant argued it applied to temporary layoffs of any length.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union's interpretation of the collective agreement was plausible and reasonable, and its refusal to grieve was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant trade union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration of successor rights.

The Board noted that there was no verification that the required notices of the application had been posted for affected employees.

The Board adjourned the application and directed the applicant to provide verification of posting or the locations for a Labour Relations Officer to post the notices within 30 days, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration of successor rights.

The Board noted that there was no evidence that the required notices of the application had been posted for affected employees, nor had the applicant verified the posting or notified the Registrar of a failure to post.

The Board adjourned the application and directed the applicant to provide the necessary information regarding the posting within 30 working days, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration of successor trade union rights.

The Board requires the responding party to post a notice of the application to affected employees, and the applicant must verify this posting.

The applicant failed to verify the posting despite numerous attempts by the Registrar's office.

The Board adjourned the matter, directing the applicant to provide the necessary information within 30 days, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

The applicant trade union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor union.

The Board's rules require the responding party to post a notice of the application for affected employees and the applicant to verify the posting.

The applicant failed to verify the posting despite numerous attempts by the Registrar's office to obtain this information.

The Board adjourned the application, directing the applicant to provide the required posting information within 30 days, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.

The applicant, a former employee on Long Term Income Protection, filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the employer improperly terminated his benefits and breached sections 72, 87, and 92 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application, finding no prima facie facts pleaded to suggest the employer's actions were motivated by anti-union animus or reprisal for exercising statutory rights.

The Board also noted that section 92 applies only to trade unions, not employers.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration of successor trade union status.

The Board required the responding parties to post a notice of the application for affected employees.

The applicant failed to verify the posting or notify the Registrar of any failure to post.

The Board adjourned the matter and directed the applicant to provide the necessary information within 30 days, failing which the application would be deemed dismissed.