Ontario Labour Relations Board

The applicant requested the suspension of several orders made by an Occupational Health and Safety Officer.

The Board directed the applicant to advise on the status of a draft regulation under the Safe Schools Act before it could deal with the request.

A request for an extension of time for filing submissions by a responding party was denied.

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.

The Board found that not less than 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 individuals in the voting constituency.

The applicants 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 had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union.

The Board directed a representation vote but ordered the ballot box sealed due to the responding party's allegations, including claims under section 63(16) of the Act.

The applicant employee 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to the union, and with no statements of desire to make representations filed, the Board declared that the union no longer represents the employees of the intervenor employer.

Following a representation vote under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, a dispute arose over whether a ballot marked with both a shaded circle and an 'X' was spoiled.

The Board applied the test from National Starch and Chemical Co., finding that the voter's choice was clearly indicated and the voter's identity was not disclosed.

The ballot was counted in favour of OPSEU.

Based on the vote results and the parties' agreement, OPSEU was appointed as the bargaining agent, and the bargaining rights of the other unions were terminated.

The applicant, who was the victim of a vicious aggravated sexual assault by a co-worker, filed a duty of fair representation complaint against her union.

The union had assisted the attacker in obtaining a leave of absence to serve his criminal sentence without consulting the applicant or considering her interests.

The Board found that the union breached its duty under section 74 of the Labour Relations Act by failing to balance the competing interests of the two bargaining unit members and ignoring the applicant's concerns.

The leave of absence agreement was set aside, and the union was directed to reconsider the matter after obtaining the applicant's input.

The applicant sought a review of an Order to Pay issued by an Employment Standards Officer.

The applicant failed to appear at the scheduled hearing.

As the applicant bore the burden of proof, the Ontario Labour Relations Board dismissed the application and directed the Director of Employment Standards to pay out the funds held in trust to the claimant and the Government of Ontario.

The applicant filed an application for the termination of bargaining rights in April 2000.

After providing particulars in June 2000, no further steps were taken.

The Board directed the applicant to advise what it wishes to do with the application by October 10, 2001, failing which the application will be terminated.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

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

The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on September 7, 2001.

However, because issues were raised in a related file regarding whether the employer is a construction employer and concerning the membership evidence, the Board directed that the ballot box be sealed and the ballots not counted until further order.

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

The parties subsequently notified the Board that they had reached a settlement.

The Board granted leave for the application to be withdrawn.

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 filed a displacement application for certification to represent security guards employed by the responding party, who were currently represented by another union.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board found that the applicant appeared to have the requisite 40 percent membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

The Board directed that a representation vote be held to determine which union the employees wished to represent them.

The United Steelworkers of America applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% 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 and noted the potential application of the one-year bar under section 10(3) of the Act.

The responding party requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the request, stating it was not prepared to grant an adjournment without the applicant's consent.

The Board ordered the applicant to file any material facts and submissions by a specified date.

The applicant trade union filed an application for certification.

The Board found that the applicant is a trade union and that it appeared to have the requisite 40% membership support in the proposed bargaining unit.

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

The applicant union applied for certification.

A representation vote was held, and not more than 50% 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 noted the potential application of the one-year bar under section 10(3) of the Act.

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

The responding parties filed timely notices under section 8.1, raising disputes about the number of employees and the identity of the employer.

The Board found that the applicant had the requisite membership support to order a representation vote.

The Board directed that a vote be held for the proposed bargaining unit of construction labourers, but ordered the ballot boxes sealed pending the resolution of the disputes regarding the related employer declaration and the number of eligible employees.

The applicant union requested to withdraw its application against the responding party employer.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board granted the request and the application was withdrawn.

The applicant union applied for certification as the bargaining agent for a unit of employees at the responding party's Toronto locations.

Following a representation vote in which more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, 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.

The employer requested an adjournment of a scheduled hearing regarding cross-applications under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, to permit it to prepare for upcoming bargaining dates.

The union opposed the request.

The Ontario Labour Relations Board denied the adjournment, noting that the applications concerned the composition of the union's bargaining committee, which appeared to be an impediment to bargaining, and that resolving these issues prior to bargaining made sense.