OLRB 2001

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for employees of the responding party.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Ontario Labour Relations Board found the agreed-upon bargaining unit appropriate.

The Board ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant union.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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 directed a representation vote to be taken.

Due to a dispute over the bargaining unit description and whether the employer is a construction employer, the Board ordered that the ballots be segregated and the ballot box sealed.

The applicant filed an application for review of an Employment Standards Officer's order to pay unpaid wages and administration costs.

However, the applicant failed to pay the ordered amount to the Director in trust or provide an irrevocable letter of credit, requesting instead to pay in installments or for an extension to arrange a letter of credit.

The Board held that under section 68(7) of the Employment Standards Act, it cannot proceed with the review unless the requisite payment or letter of credit is provided.

The Board granted the applicant 15 working days to make the payment and to request an extension of time to apply for the review, failing which the application would be dismissed.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees applied for certification.

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

As a result, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application for certification.

The applicant, Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 855, sought to withdraw its application against the Corporation of the City of Kawartha Lakes.

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

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995, and 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 on August 27, 2001, and directed that any ballots cast by students employed during the summer vacation period be segregated pending resolution of a dispute over their inclusion in the bargaining unit.

The applicant union sought to withdraw its application.

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

The applicant union filed a grievance against the responding party.

On consent of the parties, the Board revoked its previous decision and adjourned the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

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

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 defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The responding party gave notice under section 8.1 of the Act disputing the applicant's estimate of the number of employees, but agreed the ballots should be counted.

The applicant union, CAW-Canada, applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor union, SEIU Local 220.

Following a representation vote where more than fifty percent of the ballots were cast in favour of CAW-Canada, the Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the declaration.

The Board declared that CAW-Canada acquired the collective bargaining rights of SEIU Local 220 for the specified bargaining unit at the employer's apartment complex in London, Ontario.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board issued a brief decision amending the style of cause to reflect both OPSEU Local 110 and Local 109 as the applicants in the matter.

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 applicant employer appealed an Order to Pay under section 68 of the Employment Standards Act.

The workplace parties entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board ordered the funds held in trust by the Director to be disbursed in accordance with the settlement, with half the wages returning to the employer and half paid to the employee, while the administration fee was retained by the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The applicant filed an application against the responding party.

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

The applicant union and responding parties agreed to adjourn the scheduled hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the adjournment to a date to be set, noting the panel is not seized.

The applicant municipality applied to the Ontario Labour Relations Board following a sale of a business from the predecessor Public Utilities Commission.

The Board considered whether to direct a representation vote between two responding trade unions.

The Board declined to order a representation vote under section 69(8) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, noting the wide disparity in bargaining unit representation (one union represented over 86% of employees, while the other represented less than 14%).

The Board also noted the parties' agreement that the applicant is bound to the predecessor's collective agreement.

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

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 and that at least forty percent of the individuals in the proposed bargaining unit were members.

Due to a dispute over the precise description of the bargaining unit, the Board directed a representation vote for a defined voting constituency, with the bargaining unit description dispute to be resolved later if necessary.

The applicant union filed an application for certification but failed to state the estimated number of employees in the proposed bargaining unit.

The responding employer requested that the application be rejected as fundamentally deficient.

The applicant subsequently requested leave to amend the application to include the missing information.

The Board permitted the amendment, finding that the employer's concerns were addressed by the provision of the information.

The Board also noted a second certification application by another union for the same employees and indicated its inclination to direct a single representation vote with a three-way ballot, subject to any written submissions from the parties.

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

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 to be held, with the ballot box sealed pending the resolution of disputes regarding the bargaining unit description and whether the employer is a construction employer.

The applicant trade union applied for certification to represent a bargaining unit of employees of the Waterloo Region District School Board.

The responding party disputed the applicant's estimate of the number of employees and the appropriateness of the proposed bargaining unit, specifically arguing that cafeteria workers and hall monitors should not be in the same unit.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the proposed bargaining unit could be appropriate and that the applicant had sufficient membership support.

The Board directed a representation vote, with the ballots of cafeteria workers and hall monitors to be segregated.