Mr. Wray

The CAW applied for certification to represent employees at numerous healthcare and service employers, displacing the incumbent SEIU.

The Board ordered representation votes.

The SEIU requested that the Board halt the proceedings and not count the ballots because it had a contempt motion before the Court alleging impropriety in the CAW's access to employees during the organizing campaign.

The Board dismissed the request, noting its exclusive jurisdiction over certification and its focus on employees' wishes during the open period.

The Board directed that the ballots be counted.

During a hearing regarding alleged violations of section 68 of the Labour Relations Act, the complainants objected to the respondents introducing evidence of conversation details that had not been put to the complainants during cross-examination, arguing it offended the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Board ruled that the rule in Browne v. Dunn applies strictly to evidence intended to impeach a witness's credibility.

However, evidence tendered simply to add details to conversations, without intending to impeach credibility, does not offend the rule and is admissible, though the failure to cross-examine may affect its weight.