Timothy W. Sargeant

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 filed an unfair labour practice complaint alleging that the employer breached section 72 of the Labour Relations Act by permitting inequalities in pay grades and inaccurate job descriptions, and that the union breached section 74.

The employer requested dismissal of the section 72 allegations for failing to disclose a prima facie case.

The Board dismissed the section 72 complaint, finding that the applicant pleaded no facts suggesting the employer's actions were taken because she was exercising rights under the Act.

The section 74 duty of fair representation complaint against the union was permitted to proceed.

The applicant filed an application under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging that the responding party union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74.

Following receipt of a letter from the applicant's counsel requesting withdrawal, the Board ordered the matter terminated.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The responding party employer 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 that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to direct a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and that any ballots cast by individuals whose inclusion in the bargaining unit was in dispute be segregated.

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

The responding parties sought an extension of time to file a response.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the extension until August 30, 2001.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of Vincor International Inc. The Board directed the applicant to file documents demonstrating its status as a trade union.

Despite a dispute over the bargaining unit description and the inclusion of temporary/seasonal employees, the Board found the applicant established sufficient membership support and ordered a representation vote.

Disputed ballots are to be segregated.

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

The responding party disputed the proposed bargaining unit and gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant's proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support for a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken, with disputed ballots to be segregated.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent employees at a retirement home operated by the responding party.

The responding party disputed the bargaining unit description and requested that the representation vote be delayed due to an imminent build-up of employees.

The Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support for a representation vote.

The Board directed that a vote be held and declined to delay the vote, seal the ballot box, or hold an oral hearing prior to the vote regarding the build-up issue, noting that the issue could be addressed after the vote.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on August 27, 2001, and directed that any ballots cast by students employed during the summer vacation period be segregated pending resolution of a dispute over their inclusion in the bargaining unit.

The applicant applied 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 the application timely and that not less than forty percent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be taken of the employees in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied under s. 1(4) and s. 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The union sought to amend its application to include Tibbett & Britten (Axis Logistics Inc.) as a responding party and to correct the style of cause.

The Board granted the amendment, corrected the style of cause, and issued directions to the newly added responding party regarding the posting of notices and the filing of a response and documents.

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 issued a certificate to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit of employees at Comcare (Canada) Limited in Dryden.

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

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

The applicant union brought applications under sections 1(4), 69, and 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 against the responding employers.

The parties reached a Memorandum of Settlement resolving the matters.

Pursuant to the settlement, the Board declared that the union continues to represent employees in Marathon, but not in Dryden.

The Board also ordered a representation vote for employees in Thunder Bay to determine if they wish to be represented by the union, with the outcome determining bargaining rights and seniority integration.

The unfair labour practice complaint was withdrawn.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted an extension of time until August 31, 2001, to file responses in the matters.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent registered and graduate nurses at the responding party's nursing home.

A representation vote was held, and more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant.

As no statements of desire to make representations were filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed that a certificate issue to the applicant and cancelled previously set hearing dates.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

Based on the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the eligible employees in the voting constituency.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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 the applicant established sufficient membership support, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken among the employees in the voting constituency.

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, but not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in favour of the applicant.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and noted the potential application of the one-year bar under section 10(3) of the Act for any subsequent certification applications.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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