M. Hunter

The applicant union filed a second application for certification immediately after being granted leave to withdraw its first application.

The responding party employer argued that the withdrawal decision was a nullity because it was made without seeking submissions, and requested that the Board impose a bar on the second application and award costs.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the employer's arguments, finding no breach of natural justice in the withdrawal process.

The Board declined to impose a bar, finding no abuse of process, and confirmed it lacked jurisdiction to award costs.

The second application was permitted to proceed.

The Board heard preliminary matters regarding a termination application and an unfair labour practice complaint.

The Board ordered the applications consolidated as they involved common evidence.

The Board allowed the applicant to amend the name of the responding party in the termination application under section 112 of the Act, finding the error was a bona fide mistake.

Finally, the Board determined the order of proceeding, directing the unions to adduce evidence first, as the core factual allegations regarding employer interference were not acknowledged by the employer and the unions' witnesses were best positioned to establish the factual foundation.

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

The respondent and the incumbent union (Intervener #1) argued the application was untimely under section 61(2) of the Labour Relations Act because a conciliation officer had been appointed.

The applicant argued the incumbent union had abandoned its bargaining rights through inaction, rendering the conciliation appointment a nullity.

The Board held that in the face of the clear wording of section 61(2), it would not go behind the conciliation appointment based on alleged de facto abandonment.

The application was dismissed as untimely.