OLRB 2001

The applicant requested to withdraw its application before the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

The Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant trade union filed a displacement application for certification.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union.

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held, giving employees the choice between the applicant and the incumbent union.

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

If neither party requests to proceed within that time, the matter will be deemed terminated.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of the Board's decision dated September 25, 2001.

The Board directed the responding parties to file any submissions in response within five days, and the applicant to file any reply submissions within two days thereafter.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in opposition to the union, the Ontario Labour Relations Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer in the specified construction bargaining unit.

The applicant, NOVA Chemicals (Canada) Ltd., filed an application with the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

Having regard to correspondence dated November 21, 2001, the Board noted that the application was withdrawn.

The Board received a letter from counsel for the intervenor advising that the applications had been settled.

The Board directed counsel for the applicants to advise the Board as to the status of the applications as a result of the settlement.

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was held, but not more than fifty per cent 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 within the time fixed under Rule 62 of the Board's Rules of Procedure, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the destruction of the ballots.

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

The Board found the application timely and that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The responding party raised issues regarding the presence and status of employees in the bargaining unit on the application date, which the Board deferred to the panel scheduled to hear the application.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken.

The applicant filed an employment standards application against the employer and the Ministry of Labour.

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

The applicant union requested an adjournment of the application.

The responding party did not appear.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and adjourned the matter to January 8, 2002.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted an extension of time for the responding union to file its response to the application.

The deadline was extended to August 24, 2001.

The applicant requested to withdraw the application.

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

The applicants requested to withdraw their application.

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

The applicant municipality applied under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, alleging a sale of a business from the Quinte West Public Utilities Commission.

The parties reached an agreement on the remaining issues in dispute.

The Board declared a sale of a business, found an intermingling of employees, and established a single appropriate bargaining unit with CUPE Local 799 as the bargaining agent.

The Board also declared that the applicant was no longer bound by the predecessor collective agreements.

The applicant applied to terminate the bargaining rights of the responding party union.

A representation vote was held, and not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were in opposition to the union.

As no statement of desire to make representations was filed, the Board dismissed the application.

In a related employer and sale of business application, the intervenor requested an order for the production of documents from the Heavy Construction Association of Ontario (HCAO) to challenge its status as a bona fide employer's organization.

The Board dismissed the request, finding that because HCAO was not a party to the proceedings, the Board lacked the authority to make the requested production orders.

The applicants requested that two applications relating to the same subject matter be heard together.

The intervenor/responding party opposed the request because the applications involved different applicants and respondents.

The Board directed that the applications be listed for hearing before the same panel, leaving the determination of whether they will be heard together, consecutively, or otherwise to that panel.

The applicant union and responding employer agreed to adjourn the grievance applications sine die.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board consented to the adjournment for a period not exceeding one year, after which the applications will be deemed terminated if no request to proceed is made.

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

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

Finding that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members of the union, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken.