Timothy W. Sargeant

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

The application was unopposed as there were no employees in the bargaining unit at the location.

The 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 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.

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

The application was unopposed, as the responding party employer notified the Board that there were no employees in the affected bargaining unit at the location.

The 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 by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

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

The responding party employer notified the Board that there were no employees in the affected bargaining unit at its location, rendering the application unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration.

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

The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant filed an appeal under section 67 of the Employment Standards Act.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to appear.

After waiting 30 minutes past the scheduled start time with no indication of an adjournment request, the Board dismissed the appeal and terminated the matter.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held and the ballot box was sealed.

The responding party employer argued that the proposed bargaining unit was not appropriate because the individuals on the voting list were not employees under section 1(3)(b) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, or alternatively, that dual vote staff should be included.

The applicant initially argued dual vote staff were managerial but later requested all ballots, including segregated ones, be counted.

A majority of the Board ordered the ballots to be counted.

The vote revealed that not more than 50% of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

Consequently, the application for certification was dismissed, and a one-year bar on reapplying was imposed.

The applicant filed an application alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 by failing to grieve his alleged termination.

The union and the intervenor employer requested the application be dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case, arguing the applicant was laid off, not terminated.

The Board declined to dismiss the application at this preliminary stage due to conflicts in the pleadings regarding the events that occurred, and directed the matter to a consultation hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, having regard to the agreement of the parties.

The application will be deemed terminated without further notice if neither party requests to proceed within that time.

The International union applied for reconsideration of a Board decision that found Local 393W breached section 74 of the Act.

The International sought to reconsider the denial of its intervenor status and the Board's acceptance of Local 393W's admission without a hearing.

The Board declined to reconsider its decision to deny the International standing, noting that amicus curiae status is rarely granted.

Consequently, lacking standing, the International had no status to seek reconsideration of the section 74 finding.

The application for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant employer sought to have two part-time nursing supervisor positions included in the new nursing bargaining unit represented by the respondent union, with full recognition for their service and seniority under s. 33(3) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

The respondent union argued that the bargaining unit configuration had already been settled by a prior Board decision and Minutes of Settlement, and these employees were not included.

The Board agreed with the union, finding that s. 33(3) applies to an 'employee in the bargaining unit,' and it was not appropriate to decide status disputes under this section after the bargaining unit configuration had been decided.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant hair salon operator sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The issue was whether the responding party hair stylist was an employee or an independent contractor.

The applicant claimed the stylist rented a chair for $100 a week and kept her own fees, while the stylist claimed she was paid a weekly cash salary of $300.

The Board preferred the applicant's evidence, finding it improbable that an employer would pay a cash salary without deductions.

The Board concluded the stylist was an independent contractor and set aside the Order to Pay.

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 employer sought a review of an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the disbursement of the funds held in trust by the Director, with $9,000 to be paid to the employee's representative in trust, $2,654.20 returned to the employer, and the administration fee retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant union sought the production of documents in relation to an application for certification.

At the hearing, the responding party employer filed a number of documents which the union had not yet reviewed.

The Board made oral rulings directing the employer to produce documentation relating to 37 individuals and to produce for inspection all employment records relating to persons employed by or retained through ARG who performed work at the employer's location during the six months prior to the certification application.

The unfair labour practice complaint was scheduled to be heard at the same time as the certification application.

The applicant brought an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a breach of section 74 by the responding union and employer.

The Board dismissed the application on the basis that the responding parties are governed exclusively by federal jurisdiction, depriving the provincial Board of jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

The responding employer filed a response containing a notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, disagreeing with the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the proposed bargaining unit.

Prior to the scheduled representation vote, the union reviewed the employer's response and notified the Board that it wished the application to be dismissed pursuant to section 8.1(5), paragraph 7 of the Act.

The Board dismissed the application.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was ordered and held, but the ballot box was sealed pending the resolution of a related matter (Board File No. 3674-99-R).

Following the issuance of a decision in the related matter, and with the employer's agreement despite a section 8.1 notice, the Board directed that the ballots be counted.

The matter was referred to the Registrar to arrange for the counting of the ballots.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at the Toronto Transit Commission.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent 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.