Timothy W. Sargeant

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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

The applicants applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party trade union no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit.

The Board found that a conciliation officer had been appointed by the Minister of Labour prior to the application.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application as untimely in accordance with section 67(2) of the Act.

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 statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon unit of employees.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

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

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

Following its recent decision in Delhi Nursing Home, the Board ordered the representation vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing on the effect of the court order.

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The Board granted leave and the application was withdrawn.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 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 individuals formerly associated with the intervenor.

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

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support and ordered a representation vote.

The intervenor union argued that a Superior Court injunction against individuals associated with the applicant precluded the vote.

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

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

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

The intervenor argued that a Superior Court injunction against individuals associated with the applicant precluded the vote.

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

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

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

The intervenor argued that a Superior Court injunction prevented 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 effect of the Court's order.

The applicant union brought an application against the responding parties.

On consent of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated if no party requests to proceed.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

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 individuals formerly associated with the intervenor.

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 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 union requested that the vote not be held or that the ballot box be sealed, citing a Superior Court injunction against individuals formerly associated with the intervenor.

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

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

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

The intervenor union argued that a Superior Court injunction against individuals associated with the applicant precluded the vote.

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

The applicant trade union applied 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.

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 argued that a recent Superior Court injunction against individuals formerly associated with it prevented the vote or required the ballot box to be sealed.

The Board directed the vote to proceed but ordered the ballot box sealed pending a hearing to determine the effect of the court order on the Board's processes.

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 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 individuals formerly associated with the intervenor.

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 on the Board's processes.

The applicant employer filed an application alleging that truck drivers were engaging in an unlawful strike through a concerted refusal to work overtime.

The Board noted that while the application was currently a mere allegation, the Labour Relations Act strictly prohibits strikes during the term of a collective agreement.

Emphasizing the need for expedition in unlawful strike situations, the Board scheduled an expedited hearing and appointed a Board Officer to attempt a resolution.

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

The 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 ordered a representation vote.

The intervenor argued that a recent Superior Court injunction prevented the vote, or alternatively that the ballot box should be sealed pending a hearing.

The Board directed the vote to proceed but ordered the ballot box sealed until a hearing could be held to consider the effect of the court order.