OLRB 2000

The applicant trade union applied for certification.

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

The Board found the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant established sufficient membership support.

The Board directed a representation vote for the voting constituency, with disputed positions to cast segregated ballots.

The applicant hospital brought an application under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997.

Following a representation vote where not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the Canadian Union of Public Employees Local 4000, the Board ordered the termination of the union's bargaining rights for the specified bargaining unit of office and clerical employees.

The applicant appealed a decision under the Employment Standards Act.

The appeal was withdrawn with leave of the Board.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at the responding party's centre.

The intervenor union requested a postponement of the disposition pending a contempt motion and raiding charges, which the Board denied, consistent with its other decisions.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board granted the certification and ordered a certificate to issue.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The responding party employer notified the Board that there were no employees in the affected bargaining unit at the location, making the application unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor trade union by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the application and issued the requested declaration.

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

The intervenor union requested a postponement of the disposition pending a contempt motion in Superior Court and raiding charges before the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board denied the postponement, noting it had dealt with these requests in other decisions.

Having found the bargaining unit appropriate and noting that more than 50% of the ballots in the representation vote were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant union applied for certification and won a representation vote among the employees of the responding party.

The intervenor union requested a postponement of the disposition pending a contempt motion in Superior Court and raiding charges before the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board denied the postponement request, consistent with its previous decisions, and issued a certificate to the applicant union.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, contending the proposed bargaining unit could not be appropriate.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken and deferred the issue of the bargaining unit description to a post-vote hearing if necessary.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees at Pleasant Meadow Manor Nursing Home.

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

The Board directed that a representation vote be held.

The intervenor raised objections regarding alleged unfair labour practices and requested that the ballot box be sealed, but the Board declined to seal the ballot box, noting that similar objections had been dismissed in other displacement applications.

The applicant union brought an application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board dismissed the application and ordered the destruction of the ballots cast in the representation vote.

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 Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit to obtain a representation vote.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the voting constituency.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the matter.

As there was no appearance by the responding party, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the matter to June 23, 2000.

The applicant union applied for certification and won a representation vote.

The intervenor union requested that the Board postpone its disposition pending a contempt motion in Superior Court and raiding charges before the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board denied the postponement request, consistent with its previous decisions, and ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the proceedings.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the matter sine die for a period not exceeding one year, after which it will be deemed terminated without further notice.

The applicant union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of its predecessor union by reason of a merger, amalgamation, or transfer of jurisdiction.

The application was unopposed.

The Board granted the declaration, finding that the applicant union had acquired the predecessor's rights, privileges, and duties.

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

The intervenor requested a postponement of the disposition pending a contempt motion in the Superior Court and raiding charges before the Canadian Labour Congress.

The Board denied the postponement, noting it agreed with other Board decisions dealing with these requests.

Having found the bargaining unit appropriate and that more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant in a representation vote, the Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

The applicant filed a complaint alleging a violation of section 74 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

After filing additional allegations, the Ontario Labour Relations Board directed the responding party and the intervenor to provide any additional responses by January 12, 2001.

The applicant union filed a displacement application for certification.

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.

The intervenor requested that the ballot box be sealed due to alleged unfair labour practices, but the Board declined, noting it had previously rejected similar requests in related applications.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent telephone sales representatives.

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 Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant established sufficient membership support to direct a representation vote.

The Board directed that a vote be taken, with ballots from individuals in disputed positions to be segregated.

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