Timothy W. Sargeant

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification for employees currently represented by Local 2000.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed a representation vote to be held, with voters choosing between the applicant and the incumbent union.

Due to a pending decision in a related file and a section 8.1 notice from the responding party, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed until further order.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent table games floor supervisors at Casino Windsor.

Finding that the union appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed a representation vote.

However, due to disputes regarding the inclusion of dual rate staff, whether the supervisors were managerial, whether they fell under an existing collective agreement, and whether the applicant was an eligible 'registered supplier' under the Gaming Control Act 1992, the Board ordered the ballot box sealed until the disputes are resolved.

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and determined the appropriate bargaining unit based on the parties' agreement.

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

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by another union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with the ballot box sealed pending the resolution of a related Board file.

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

The Board granted leave and the applications were withdrawn.

The applicant, Paul Piels Jr., sought to withdraw his application against Tony Larocca and General Motors of Canada Limited.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Kids Help Phone.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the agreed-upon bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote.

Although the employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act disagreeing with the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the unit, the employer agreed that the ballots be counted, so the Board did not order the ballot box sealed.

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

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40 per cent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit and ordered a representation vote.

Because the responding party gave timely notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 disputing the union's estimate of the number of individuals in the bargaining unit, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed pending further order or agreement of the parties.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The responding party failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

Based on the application material, the Board found that not less than 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 individuals in the voting constituency.

The applicant, Christian Labour Association of Canada, sought to withdraw its application against the responding party, 1057905 Ontario Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of Royal Laser Tech Corporation.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty per cent 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 dismissed the application.

The Board imposed a one-year bar on further certification applications by the applicant for this bargaining unit.

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.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with segregated ballots for disputed positions including department managers, office and clerical staff, and students.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed its applications as untimely.

The applicant argued that a pending appeal to the Court of Appeal could ultimately reinstate an interest arbitration award, making the applications timely.

The Board dismissed the request as an attempt to relitigate without new evidence, noting that the theoretical concerns had not yet transpired.

The Board clarified that a future reconsideration request would be entertained if the Court of Appeal decision altered the circumstances, provided it is filed in a timely manner after that decision.

The applicant, Teamsters Local Union 91, applied for certification to represent employees of Canadian Waste Services Inc. in Brockville, Ontario.

As the applicant had not previously been found to be a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board directed it to file materials establishing its status.

Finding that at least forty percent of the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union, the Board directed a representation vote.

The Board also addressed disputes over the bargaining unit description and directed that ballots of individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

The applicant union filed a displacement application.

The responding party and intervenor argued the application was untimely due to an existing collective agreement expiring in October 2001.

The Board directed the applicant to provide submissions on the timeliness issue, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, regarding a grievance settlement signed in July 1998.

The Board dismissed the application without a hearing due to the applicant's excessive and unexplained delay of nearly two years in filing the application.

Furthermore, the Board found that the applicant failed to plead facts that would establish a prima facie case of arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith conduct by the union.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had the requisite membership support to order a representation vote.

The intervenor argued that a recent Superior Court injunction against individuals associated with the applicant precluded the vote or required the ballot box to be sealed.

The Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to consider the intervenor's arguments regarding the effect of the court order.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification to represent employees currently represented by the intervenor union.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support and ordered a representation vote.

The intervenor requested that the application be dismissed or the vote delayed due to a Superior Court injunction against former intervenor officials now with the applicant.

The Board ordered the vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to determine the effect of the court order.

The applicant alleged that the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to hold a formal vote of all members on whether to reopen the collective agreement following the announced closure of the employer's facility.

The union had held a meeting where a show of hands supported the leadership's position to allow the agreement to automatically renew.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that it had no authority to oversee the union's internal processes and that the union's decision not to reopen the agreement was reasonable and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that at least 40 percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board directed a representation vote, with segregated ballots for individuals in disputed locations and positions.

The ballot box was ordered sealed pending resolution of the employer's section 8.1 notice regarding the bargaining unit description and estimate of individuals.