4 total
Board orders representation vote with four options in competing union certification applications at Sobeys.
The Board conducted a consultation to determine the arrangements for a representation vote in competing certification applications by UFCW Canada and CAW-Canada for employees at Sobeys.
The Board ordered a representation vote to be held on December 20, 2001, with a voting constituency of all employees in the Regional Municipality of Durham serving the Sobeys account, subject to certain exclusions.
The ballot will include options for CAW-Canada, District 2A, UFCW Canada, and no union.
The Board directed that part-time and full-time employees vote separately and that disputed employees' ballots be segregated.
Certification application dismissed after representation vote favoured the intervenor union.
The applicant union applied for certification.
A representation vote was held, and the parties agreed to count nine of the 11 ballots cast.
All nine ballots were cast in favour of the intervenor union.
As not more than fifty per cent of the ballots were cast in favour of the applicant, the application for certification was dismissed.
Alcan Aluminium Limited, not its unincorporated division, is the proper employer in a construction certification application.
Two trade unions applied for certification in the construction industry, naming Alcan Aluminium Limited as the responding employer.
Several divisions of Alcan intervened, arguing that the specific division, Chemicals, was the true employer and that Alcan Aluminium Limited should not be named.
The Board examined the corporate structure and control, finding that Alcan Aluminium Limited retained ultimate financial and labour relations control, particularly concerning the construction project in question.
The Board concluded that Alcan Aluminium Limited, not its unincorporated division, was the proper responding employer for labour relations purposes.
Board proceedings stayed due to reasonable apprehension of bias arising from internal disclosures about Vice-Chair removals.
The applicant union brought unfair labour practice and contempt applications against the respondents, including a Minister of the Crown.
During the proceedings, the Vice-Chair disclosed that all Board Vice-Chairs had received confidential information regarding the selection process for the recent removal of four Vice-Chairs, an issue central to the applicant's allegations of political interference and lack of institutional independence.
The respondents moved for recusal.
The Board held that, given the high standard of natural justice applicable to its adjudicative functions, the disclosure of this highly relevant but undisclosed information raised a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The proceedings were stayed.
