Timothy W. Sargeant

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

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support and ordered a representation vote.

Although the employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act disagreeing with the bargaining unit description and the estimated number of individuals, the Board declined to seal the ballot box because the employer agreed to count the ballots.

A dissenting Board member argued that the vote should not take place or the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

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

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

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The employer filed a section 8.1 notice disagreeing with the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the bargaining unit and argued the individuals were independent contractors.

The Board found that regardless of the number used, the union had the requisite forty percent membership support.

The Board ordered a representation vote and directed that any ballots cast by disputed individuals be segregated.

The Board declined to seal the ballot box.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that at least 40% of the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote.

The employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act disagreeing with the union's estimate of employees, but the Board found the 40% threshold was met regardless of the estimate used, and declined to seal the ballot box.

The intervenor's request to seal the box was also denied.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing the ballot box should be sealed until section 8.1 issues were resolved.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the union.

A certificate was ordered to issue and previously set hearing dates were cancelled.

The applicant union sought leave to amend its name to the 'International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Construction Council of Ontario'.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the amendment conditionally, deeming it granted if no objection was received by a specified date.

The applicant requested further production of documents in relation to an answer for a request for particulars sent by the intervenor.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to order further production at this time, noting that production should not be used as a fishing expedition and must be exercised circumspectly.

The Board directed the parties to make submissions before the hearing panel if disputes regarding document production remain.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted an extension of time until August 18, 2000, to file a response in the matter.

The applicant, a seasonal employee, filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation by failing to represent her regarding seasonal work and seniority rights.

The union and employer requested the application be dismissed without a hearing, arguing the collective agreement did not grant seniority rights or grievance rights to seasonal employees.

The Board declined to dismiss the application at this stage, finding a basic conflict regarding the relevant terms of the collective agreement, and directed the matter to a consultation hearing.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the consent adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the matter will be deemed terminated if neither party requests to proceed.

The applicant brought a complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 by failing to dispatch him to a pipeline project.

The union requested that the application be dismissed because the applicant was not an employee in a bargaining unit at the relevant time.

The Board agreed, finding that section 74 only applies to employees in a bargaining unit, not to unemployed members in a hiring hall context.

The application was dismissed without a hearing.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees of the responding municipality.

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

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description, noting the impending amalgamation of the municipality.

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 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 trade union by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the application and issued the requested declaration.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation regarding his termination from his employer.

The union sought a preliminary ruling to dismiss the application due to a 17-month delay in filing.

The Board declined to dismiss the application without a hearing at this stage, without prejudice to the union's right to raise the timeliness issue in subsequent proceedings.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and determined that the proposed bargaining unit was appropriate for collective bargaining.

Finding that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union, the Board ordered a representation vote.

The Board denied the responding party's request to postpone the vote due to employee absences.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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