OLRB 2001

The applicant union filed an application for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50 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, the Board dismissed the application and directed the parties' attention to section 10(3) of the Act regarding subsequent applications.

The parties agreed to adjourn the application sine die for a period not exceeding one year.

The Board consented to the adjournment, noting that the matter would be deemed terminated if neither party requested to proceed within that time.

The applicant union withdrew its application against the responding party employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board noted the withdrawal and concluded the matter.

The applicant, Industrial Wood & Allied Workers of Canada (I.W.A. Canada), sought to withdraw its application against Applica Canada Corporation.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted leave to withdraw the application and directed the responding party to post copies of the decision for affected employees.

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

A representation vote was held and the ballot box was sealed due to a dispute over the identity of the true employer.

The Board ordered that the ballots be counted immediately, reasoning that if the applicant did not receive a majority, there would be no need to litigate the true employer issue.

If the applicant received a majority, the matter would be referred to a hearing to determine the true employer.

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

The responding party objected, arguing that an oral agreement between the parties barred the union from applying for certification.

The Board rejected this argument, noting that parties cannot contract out of the Act.

Finding that the union had established sufficient membership support, the Board directed a representation vote for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

The applicant trade union applied under section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that it acquired the rights, privileges, and duties of the predecessor trade union.

The employer took no position on holding a representation vote, provided it was without prejudice to its right to dispute the legal effect of a majority.

The Board ordered a representation vote to determine whether the employees in the voting constituency wished to be represented by the applicant or the predecessor trade union.

The applicant union advised the Board that the responding party employer failed to post the required notices of the certification application and representation vote.

Pursuant to sections 111(2)(f) and (g) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board appointed a Labour Relations Specialist to enter the employer's premises and conspicuously post the required documents.

The applicant union sought an adjournment of a scheduled hearing and directions for the production of further particulars.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board adjourned the hearing, directed the applicant to provide further particulars and documents, and allowed the responding parties three weeks to amend their response after receipt of the materials.

The applicant and responding party agreed to adjourn the application sine die.

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

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

Following a representation vote where more than fifty per cent 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 ordered that a certificate issue to the applicant.

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

The responding party disagreed with the proposed bargaining unit description and the number of employees.

Finding that not less than forty percent of the individuals in the proposed unit were members of the union, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken and the ballots be segregated and sealed pending resolution of the disputes.

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

Finding that at least forty percent of the employees in the bargaining unit expressed a wish not to be represented by the union, the Board directed a representation vote.

The Board declined the union's request to dismiss the application without a hearing or vote under section 63(16) and ordered that the ballot box not be sealed.

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

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union and directed a representation vote for the agreed-upon bargaining unit.

Although the employer gave notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 disagreeing with the union's estimate of the number of employees, the Board determined that the 40% membership threshold was met regardless.

The majority directed that the ballots be counted following the vote.

Board Member Ronson dissented, arguing that section 8.1(4) requires the ballot box to be sealed when such notice is given.

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 cast were in opposition to the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

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

The Ontario Labour Relations 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 of the union at the time the application was made.

The Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the eligible employees.

The applicant union sought a declaration that a sale of business occurred between Rideau Plumbing and Heating Ltd. and Gilles Patenaude operating as Gilles Plumbing, or that they were a single employer.

The union had previously obtained a grievance award against Rideau for using non-union labour, but Rideau claimed to have ceased operations.

The Board found that Patenaude, the principal of Rideau, was operating Gilles Plumbing using the same skills and performing the same work.

The Board declared a sale of business under section 69 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, binding Patenaude to the collective agreement and holding him liable for the $36,873.60 in damages previously awarded against Rideau.

The unfair labour practice complaint was dismissed as the mischief was remedied by the sale of business declaration.

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

The responding party employer asserted that it had no employees in the proposed bargaining unit on the application date, claiming the workers were employed by subcontractors, and requested the ballot box be sealed under section 8.1 of the Act.

The Board held that a section 8.1 notice is irrelevant when an employer asserts it has no employees, and declined to seal the ballot box on that basis.

Finding that the applicant appeared to have the requisite membership support, the Board defined the appropriate bargaining unit and directed that a representation vote be taken.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board, on its own motion, reconsidered a portion of its July 16, 2001 decision.

The Board amended paragraph 5 to direct all parties to be prepared to call all evidence and make all arguments regarding whether the labour relations of Supply Chain Express Inc. are governed by federal or provincial law at the scheduled hearing on August 17, 2001.

The Board noted that while this might result in some premature preparation, it was preferable to losing hearing time.

The applicant filed a duty of fair representation complaint against the union regarding his dismissal by the school board.

The union filed a detailed response asserting it filed a grievance but decided not to proceed to arbitration due to the applicant's disciplinary record, and argued the application lacked a prima facie case and was untimely.

The Board directed the applicant to file a reply to the union's factual assertions and timeliness arguments by a specified date, failing which the application would be deemed terminated.