OLRB 2001

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

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

Based on the agreement of the parties regarding the appropriate bargaining unit and the membership evidence filed, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

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

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 to warrant a representation vote.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, with segregated ballots for individuals in disputed positions.

The Vice-Chair of the Ontario Labour Relations Board unseized herself from the case due to her resignation from the Board and return to legal practice.

As only preliminary matters had been dealt with, there was no prejudice to the parties, and the evidentiary portion of the case could proceed before another panel.

The intervenor employer brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's duty of fair representation application on the grounds of undue delay.

The Board had previously directed the parties to provide submissions on when the applicant knew or ought to have known that his grievance was withdrawn.

The applicant submitted he only learned of the withdrawal when he filed the application in February 2001.

The union and employer could not provide a definitive date when the applicant was informed.

The Board found no basis for finding any delay by the applicant and dismissed the motion.

The union applied for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The employer asserted there were no employees in the bargaining unit and purported to give notice under section 8.1.

The Board found the section 8.1 notice invalid, as it is not intended for situations where the employer claims zero employees.

The Board determined the appropriate geographic description of the bargaining unit using geographic townships rather than municipal boundaries.

Finding that the union appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support, the Board directed a representation vote.

The applicant, United Steelworkers of America, sought to withdraw its applications against the responding party, Casino Rama Services Inc. The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the applications.

The applicant union referred a grievance to the Ontario Labour Relations Board under section 133 of the Labour Relations Act, alleging the responding employer failed to remit benefit contributions, pay vacation pay, and hire through the union office.

The responding party failed to file a response or notice of intent to defend.

Pursuant to the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Board deemed the facts in the application accepted and issued a default decision.

The Board declared the employer bound by the collective agreement, found it in violation, and ordered it to pay $6,368.69 in damages plus $214.00 in costs.

The applicant union sought to suspend an inspector's order under the Occupational Health and Safety Act requiring that brackets supporting electrical cable trays be installed by certified electricians or registered apprentices.

The applicant argued the work was structural and fell within the ironworkers' trade, characterizing the issue as a jurisdictional dispute rather than a safety concern.

The Ministry of Labour did not oppose the suspension.

Applying the Hamilton-Wentworth factors, the Board found that suspending the order would not endanger worker safety and that the applicant's members were prejudiced by being prevented from working.

The Board suspended the order pending the disposition of the appeal.

The CAW requested to be added to the ballot for a representation vote among part-time employees.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board determined there was insufficient time to amend the ballot for the vote scheduled that day.

To ensure the vote reflected the true wishes of the employees and to avoid future litigation, the Board cancelled the scheduled vote and ordered a new vote to be held three days later.

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

Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Ontario Labour Relations Board ordered the application withdrawn.

The applicant union advised the Board that it had underestimated the number of persons in the bargaining unit and filed membership evidence on behalf of less than 40% of them.

The applicant requested that the application be dismissed pursuant to section 8.1(5), paragraph 7 of the Labour Relations Act.

The responding party and intervenor agreed, and neither requested a bar under section 111(2)(k).

The Board dismissed the application and ordered the destruction of the ballots cast in the representation vote.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification under the construction industry provisions of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

The Board found that the applicant filed sufficient membership evidence to demonstrate that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit appeared to be members.

The Board determined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicants applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board 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 per cent of the employees had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

The responding party requested reconsideration of a default decision issued after it failed to file a Notice of Intent to Defend/Participate in a grievance referral.

The responding party claimed the union had agreed to adjourn the grievance without requiring the notice and to advise the Board.

The Board directed the union to respond to these submissions by a specified date and denied the responding party's request to adjourn the upcoming hearing on damages pending the reconsideration determination.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

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

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and cancelled the previously set hearing dates.

The Board also noted the potential application of section 10(3) of the Act to any subsequent application filed within one year.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

Following a representation vote, the parties agreed that five segregated ballots were not relevant to the outcome and that the decision should be based on the 22 remaining ballots.

As not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the Board dismissed the application for certification and directed the parties' attention to the statutory bar for subsequent applications under section 10(3) of the Act.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted an extension of time until October 10, 2001, to file a response in the matter.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application following an agreement between the parties.

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

The applicant sought to withdraw the application.

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