Timothy W. Sargeant

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 warrant a representation vote.

The intervenor union argued that a Superior Court injunction against individuals associated with the applicant precluded a vote, or alternatively, that the ballot box should be sealed pending a hearing.

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

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification for a bargaining unit of employees currently represented by the intervenor.

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

However, because the intervenor filed a Superior Court injunction against individuals formerly associated with it who were now with the applicant, the Board 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 union filed a displacement application for certification.

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

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

Following its recent precedent, 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's order.

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with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the employer.

The Board cancelled previously set hearing dates and ordered the destruction of the ballots after 30 days.

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

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

The intervenor argued that a recent Superior Court injunction against individuals associated with the applicant precluded a 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 court's order.

The applicant union applied for certification for a bargaining unit of employees at Jason House in Hamilton.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification for a bargaining unit of employees currently represented by the intervenor.

The Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support and ordered 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 vote to proceed but directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing to consider the effect of the court order.

The applicant union filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging a breach of section 86 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party employer sought to have the application dismissed without a hearing on the basis that a parallel grievance had been filed.

The Board declined to dismiss the application, finding the issues were not identical to those in the potential arbitration.

The Board also exercised its discretion to allow the applicant to amend its application to include an allegation of a breach of section 70 of the Act, and directed the Registrar to set a hearing date.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board ordered a representation vote.

However, due to an intervenor's objection based on a Superior Court injunction against individuals associated with the applicant, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed pending a hearing on whether the injunction affects the Board's usual processes.

The applicant sought to withdraw the application against the responding party.

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

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant, Michael Donald Black, sought to withdraw his application against the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 617-P. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave for the application to be withdrawn.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, sought to withdraw its application against Primary Response Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

The Ontario Nurses' Association applied for certification to represent registered and graduate nurses employed at Fairview Lodge.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found the applicant to be a trade union and that it had the requisite membership support.

The Board directed a representation vote to be held on March 22, 2000, and ordered that any ballots cast by individuals in disputed positions be segregated.

The applicants filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, by failing to pursue their grievances regarding a one-day suspension.

The local union admitted the breach in its response.

The Board dismissed the application against the international union and the joint council on consent.

Given the local union's admission, the Board found a breach of section 74 and ordered the employer and the local union to proceed to step 3 of the grievance procedure.

The applicant requested to withdraw its application.

The adjudicator granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed his application in its entirety.

The Board found that the request was an attempt to relitigate the matter and that the applicant failed to raise new evidence or important issues of Board policy.

The applicant also made groundless allegations regarding the integrity of the Board and raised issues outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The union applied for certification of a bargaining unit of employees at the employer's auto parts store.

The primary dispute was whether the office clerk should be excluded from the unit as an office and clerical employee, and whether the geographic scope should be municipality-wide or site-specific.

The Board found that the office clerk performed primarily clerical functions, had a different line of supervision, and lacked functional integration with the counter clerks, parts handlers, and drivers.

Applying the Hospital for Sick Children test, the Board concluded that a unit excluding office and clerical staff was appropriate.

The Board also determined that the bargaining unit should be site-specific because the employer operated two separate divisions in the municipality.

A certificate was issued to the union.

The employer announced a corporate reorganization involving the closure of several facilities and the opening of a new facility in Mississauga.

Before any employees were hired at the new facility, the employer and the union representing employees at one of the closing facilities negotiated a replacement collective agreement that expanded the union's recognition to include the new Mississauga facility.

The applicants, who represented employees at other closing facilities, challenged this voluntary recognition under sections 66 and 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding parties brought motions to dismiss for lack of status and failure to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the section 66 applications, finding the applicants lacked status as they did not represent employees in the new bargaining unit.

However, the Board refused to dismiss the section 96 unfair labour practice complaints against the employer on a prima facie basis, finding that the expansion of the scope clause without evidence of the employer's reasons raised complex labour relations issues requiring a full hearing.

The section 96 complaints against the union were dismissed for failing to disclose a prima facie case of impropriety.