Timothy W. Sargeant

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

The responding party argued the application was untimely under section 67(2) because a conciliation officer had been appointed prior to the application's filing, and alternatively sought dismissal under section 63(16).

The Board found the application appeared untimely on the face of the pleadings and declined to order a representation vote.

The applicant was granted a brief period to file submissions on why the application should not be dismissed for untimeliness.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that the proposed bargaining unit is appropriate.

Finding 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.

The Board issued a procedural decision regarding the delivery date of documents sent by regular mail.

The Board allowed additional time for delivery and set May 18, 2001, as the date for determining the period to file and deliver a response.

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.

The applicant union brought an application concerning a jurisdictional dispute under section 99 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The parties reached a settlement.

Consequently, the Board amended the style of cause to reflect the correct name of the responding employer and terminated the file.

The applicant filed an application for termination of bargaining rights.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the responding party union, and with no statement of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the employer.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification to represent employees of the responding party hotel.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to warrant a representation vote.

Despite disputes over the exact composition of the bargaining unit and certain positions, the Board directed that a representation vote be held, with disputed ballots to be segregated.

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

The union argued the application was untimely and that the applicant was not a member of the bargaining unit.

The Board found the application timely as it was filed exactly one year after certification.

Finding that at least forty percent of employees expressed a wish not to be represented by the union, the Board directed a representation vote, with the ballot box to be sealed pending resolution of the status disputes.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent employees of the WoodGreen Community Centre of Toronto.

The parties agreed on the bargaining unit description, except for two positions.

A representation vote was held, and more than fifty percent of the ballots cast were in favour of the union, regardless of the outcome of the disputed positions.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board exercised its discretion under section 9(2) of the Labour Relations Act to certify the union pending the final resolution of the composition of the bargaining unit.

In an application for certification, the responding party requested that the Board exercise its discretion under section 111(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 to order a second vote.

The applicant union disputed the facts in the responding party's submissions and asked if a response was required.

The Board directed the applicant to file a response to the submissions.

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

The responding party employer failed to file a response within the stipulated time.

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 of the union at the time the application was made.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

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

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

An individual applicant requested an adjournment of the hearing because his counsel was ill and could not attend.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment on the applicant's representation and directed his counsel to provide a letter explaining the absence.

The Registrar was directed to schedule a new hearing date.

The applicant employer assigned the maintenance, repair, and inspection of a newly installed Pfaff screw hoist to millwrights from the ATU.

The IAM disputed this assignment, claiming the work based on past practice with a previous hoist.

The Board found that both unions had members qualified to do the work and that past practice was mixed.

Ultimately, the Board upheld the employer's assignment to the ATU, finding it justified by economy and efficiency considerations, including the ATU members' prior experience with similar hoists and a shared management structure.

The applicants filed unfair labour practice complaints alleging the union breached its duty of fair representation and duty of fair referral under sections 74 and 75 of the Labour Relations Act.

One applicant alleged the union failed to pursue a grievance regarding his removal as a steward.

The Board found the union's interpretation of the collective agreement was reasonable and dismissed this claim.

Both applicants also alleged they were improperly bypassed on the hiring hall list since 1994.

The Board dismissed these claims due to a lack of specific pleadings regarding who was improperly assigned work and the untimeliness of the allegations.

The applicant union filed an application against the responding party employer.

The employer raised preliminary issues in its response and sought to have the application dismissed without a hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board declined to dismiss the application summarily and directed the Registrar to schedule a one-day hearing to address the preliminary issues.

The applicants, employees at an A&P retail store, alleged that their union breached its duty of fair representation under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act.

The union had negotiated a new collective agreement with less favourable terms to facilitate the store's conversion to a different banner, aiming to preserve jobs.

The applicants argued the union should have waited until the existing collective agreement expired and allowed the full membership to vote.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the union faced a difficult choice to prevent a potential store closure and acted reasonably by allowing the affected store employees to vote on the proposal, which the majority accepted.

The union's conduct was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Board decision that dismissed her duty of fair representation complaint against the union.

The applicant argued that the union's representative gave incorrect testimony and that the Board made factual errors regarding whether she was properly notified by the union.

The Board dismissed the application for reconsideration, finding that it was an attempt to relitigate the matter and that the alleged factual errors would not have altered the original conclusion that the union's decision not to file a grievance was reasonable.

The applicant filed a reprisal complaint under section 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act against the responding party.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The Board proceeded to hear the uncontradicted evidence of the responding party's representative.

Based on this evidence, the Board was satisfied that the applicant's termination did not contravene the Act and dismissed the application.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board heard a consolidated application for certification and a related employer application under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board issued procedural orders directing the responding employers to file a response and produce material documents regarding the section 1(4) application.

The Board also ordered the applicant union to provide full particulars of its position concerning the effect of recent Minutes of Settlement on the applications.

The matters were scheduled for continuation of hearing.