Timothy W. Sargeant

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification to represent employees of The Corporation of the Township of Cardiff.

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.

The Board ordered a representation vote.

Although the employer gave notice under section 8.1 disagreeing with the bargaining unit description and estimate, the Board directed that the ballots be counted because the employer agreed to it.

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

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Valley Manor Inc. The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

Based on the membership evidence, the Board determined that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

Although the employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act disagreeing with the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the unit, the Board found that the forty percent threshold was met regardless of the estimate used, and declined to seal the ballot box.

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

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 Board found the bargaining unit appropriate.

A certificate was ordered to issue to the applicant.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The original complaint was dismissed due to a delay of over ten years and a failure to plead a prima facie case of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct.

The Board found that the reconsideration request did not raise any new evidence or important issues of Board policy, but was merely an attempt to relitigate the matter.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant appealed under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant and the employer reached a settlement.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the application having regard to the settlement.

The applicants, former employees of a Loeb grocery store, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

Following the acquisition of the store by A&P, the union consented to the store reopening as a Food Basics outlet under an existing collective agreement with inferior wages and no transfer of seniority.

The Board dismissed the application at the consultation stage, finding that the union's decision was reasonable given that the alternative was the permanent closure of the store and the loss of all employment opportunities for the bargaining unit members.

The applicant appealed under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

Prior to the scheduled hearing, the applicant and the employer reached a settlement.

Pursuant to the settlement, the applicant agreed to withdraw the appeal.

The Board terminated the matter.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, requested to withdraw its application against CPI Plastics Group Ltd. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an application under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act regarding her termination.

At the hearing, the parties agreed that the applicant's two periods of employment constituted continuous employment and that her termination was not for wilful misconduct.

The employer agreed to pay the applicant her full entitlement of $2,400.00.

The Board issued a consent order directing the employer to pay the agreed amount.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act regarding the settlement of her grievances.

The union and the employer argued the matter was res judicata, as the Board had previously dismissed a similar application concerning the same settlement agreement.

The Board found that the application raised essentially the same issues as the prior decision and exercised its discretion under section 96 of the Act to dismiss the application without a hearing.

The applicant appealed a decision under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend or request an adjournment.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the appeal and terminated the matter due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer breached the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by unilaterally introducing a voluntary performance sharing program.

The employer argued that the program was permitted under the management rights clause or, alternatively, that the union had consented to its introduction.

The Board found that the program impacted wages and was a negotiable matter.

The Board concluded that the union had not agreed to the program's introduction, resulting in a technical breach of section 70 of the Act.

A declaration was issued, but no other remedies were granted as the employer had not intended to breach the Act.

The applicant appealed an Employment Standards Officer's refusal to issue an Order to Pay for severance and termination pay.

The applicant's employment was terminated in 1990, but he did not file a claim until 1996, after learning of a successful claim by other employees.

The applicant argued the employer was estopped from relying on the limitation period due to statements in his termination letter.

The Board held that section 82(2) of the Employment Standards Act imposes a strict cap on the recovery of money to the two years prior to the Director's knowledge of the claim.

The Board found no basis to relieve against this cap and dismissed the appeal as statute-barred.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the responding union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by failing to file a wrongful dismissal grievance.

The applicant had been terminated over ten years prior to filing the application.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing, finding that the extreme delay of over ten years was unjustified and that the pleadings failed to establish a prima facie case of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union.

The applicant union brought a jurisdictional dispute against the responding party employer.

The parties reached Minutes of Settlement dated May 31, 2000.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board terminated the matter in accordance with the settlement.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The responding party and intervenor argued the application was untimely because a conciliation officer had been appointed on the same day the application was filed, and the intervenor was not served until the following day.

The Board found that while it could extend the time for delivery under its Rules, the application was not properly 'made' until it was both filed and delivered.

Because delivery to the intervenor occurred on March 17, 2000, after the appointment of a conciliation officer on March 16, 2000, the application was untimely under section 67(2) of the Act.

The application was dismissed.

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 Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the declaration.

The applicant union brought an unopposed application 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 Board, noting that there were no employees in the affected bargaining unit and the application was unopposed, granted the declaration.

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 Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the declaration.

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 as there were no employees in the affected bargaining unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the declaration.