Timothy W. Sargeant

The applicants sought to adjourn their applications sine die.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to adjourn the applications sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The applicant and responding party agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant filed an application for decertification under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The responding party union argued the application was untimely.

The Board previously held the application appeared timely, as it was filed exactly one year after the date of certification.

The union requested to make full submissions on the timeliness issue at the scheduled hearing.

The Board deferred the issue of timeliness to the panel hearing the matter on June 18, 2001, and noted that the current panel does not remain seized.

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

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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the responding party.

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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant union for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

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 bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's day nursery.

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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent registered and graduate nurses employed by the responding hospital.

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 found the bargaining unit appropriate and directed that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees of The Corporation of the Town of Perth.

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 union and ordered a certificate to issue.

The applicants, Judy Ford and Mary Lynn Gray, brought an application against the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1748, with The Golden Plough Lodge, Home for the Aged as an intervenor.

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

The applicant union requested an extension of time to file submissions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request, extending the deadline to June 12, 2001.

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

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

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees at Casino Sault Ste.

Marie.

The responding party disputed the bargaining unit description and the membership evidence, requesting that the ballot box be sealed.

The Board found sufficient membership support to order a representation vote and declined to seal the ballot box, noting that statutory and evidentiary issues could be addressed after the vote.

A dissenting member would have ordered the ballot box sealed pursuant to section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

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

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

The applicant union brought an application for first contract arbitration under section 43 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

A separate application for decertification under section 63 of the Act was also filed regarding the same bargaining unit.

Pursuant to sections 43(23.1) and 43(23.2) of the Act, the Board is mandated to deal with the decertification application before proceeding with the first contract application.

Accordingly, the Board adjourned the first contract hearing sine die until a final decision is rendered in the decertification matter.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application against the responding employers.

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

The applicants sought to withdraw their application against the responding party union.

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

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

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 service employees at Markham Stouffville Hospital.

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

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

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with the ballot box sealed pending resolution of the bargaining unit description dispute.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union after being terminated from his employment.

The union requested that the application be dismissed without a hearing on the basis that the applicant voluntarily withdrew his grievances.

The applicant alleged that the union suggested he sign a waiver to go to the Labour Board and failed to assist him with accommodating his disability.

The Board declined to dismiss the application without a hearing, finding that the applicant's pleadings raised issues regarding whether the withdrawal was voluntary and based on accurate information.

The matter was directed to a consultation hearing.