Timothy W. Sargeant

The applicant, Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 53, sought to withdraw its application against the Corporation of the Town of Whitby.

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

The responding party requested that the Board order the removal of the scrutinizer appointed by the applicant for a representation vote.

The Board declined the request, noting that the vote is conducted under the auspices of a Board officer who oversees the procedure, and therefore the Board will not interfere with the applicant's choice of scrutinizer.

The applicant union applied for certification.

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 certified the applicant as the bargaining agent for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

Finding the application timely and supported by at least forty percent of the bargaining unit, the Board directed a representation vote.

The union requested the application be dismissed without a vote due to alleged employer interference under section 63(16).

The Board declined to dismiss the application without a vote but ordered the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the interference allegations.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The majority of the Board found the numerical difference was not significant and ordered a representation vote without sealing the ballot box.

The dissenting member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1(4) of the Act.

In an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, both parties requested the production of particulars and documents.

The Board directed mutual production by a specified date and ordered the applicant to deliver pleadings from related files to the responding party.

The Board also granted the responding party an extension of time to file its response.

The applicant union requested that its unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 be scheduled for hearing with another Board file.

The responding party opposed the request.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and referred the matter to the Registrar to schedule the applications to be heard on the same day, leaving the hearing panel to determine how best to proceed.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of Stellarc Precision Bar Inc. 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 issued a certificate to the applicant.

The applicant applied to decertify the responding party union.

The union requested that the ballot box be sealed pending the resolution of a reconsideration request, a timeliness issue related to another proceeding, and allegations of employer conduct and voting irregularities.

The Board had previously declined to seal the ballot box in two prior decisions.

The Board found that the union's allegations of prejudice were insufficient to reverse the earlier decisions and ordered the ballots to be counted.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party trade 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 intervenor employer.

The applicant filed an application alleging a breach of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

After being directed to serve the responding party union and the employer, the applicant informed the Board that the union office was unmanned.

The Board directed the applicant to serve the union by registered mail and notify the Board.

The applicant filed a timely application under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party union's bargaining rights.

Finding that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit expressed a wish not to be represented by the union, the Board directed a representation vote.

The Board declined the union's request to dismiss the application without a hearing or vote under section 63(16) and ordered that the ballot box not be sealed.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the union violated section 74.

The union asserted that the application failed to disclose a prima facie violation and requested that the Board dismiss it without a hearing.

After providing the applicant an opportunity to respond, the Board declined to dismiss the matter and directed it to a consultation hearing.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on September 10, 2001.

The applicants applied under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration terminating the responding party's bargaining rights.

The Board found the application timely and that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote but ordered the ballot box sealed due to the responding party's allegations, including claims under section 63(16) of the Act.

The responding party requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, stating it was not prepared to grant an adjournment without the applicant's consent.

The Board ordered the applicant to file any material facts and submissions by a specified date.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on September 7, 2001.

However, because issues were raised in a related file regarding whether the employer is a construction employer and concerning the membership evidence, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed and the ballots not counted until further order.

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

The 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 directed a representation vote to be held, with the ballot box sealed pending the resolution of disputes regarding the bargaining unit description and whether the employer is a construction employer.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification to represent security guards employed by the responding party, who were 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 held to determine which union the employees wished to represent them.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with the ballot box to be sealed pending the resolution of disputes regarding the bargaining unit description and whether the employer is a construction employer.