[1980] OLRB Rep. June 846
0186-79-R Christian Labour Association of Canada, Applicant, v. Master Insulation Company Limited, Respondent, v. International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers, Local 95, Intervener.
BEFORE: R. A. Furness, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members O. Hodges and R. W. Redford.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; June 17, 1980
In a decision dated February 1, 1980, the Board directed the taking of a representation vote. The respondent did not have any employees in the bargaining unit on February 1, 1980. Subsequently, a representation vote was conducted by the Board on March 21, 1980. In a decision dated May 21, 1980, the Board set aside that representation vote.
It appears that the respondent may now have employees who are included in the bargaining unit defined in the decision of the Board dated February 1, 1980. Having regard to the representations before it, the Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the employees in the bargaining unit. All employees of the respondent in the bargaining unit on the date hereof who do not voluntarily terminate their employment or who are not discharged for cause between the date hereof and the date the vote is taken will be eligible to vote.
The persons who desire to vote in the representation vote are to be permitted to vote by means of segregated ballots. The Registrar is directed to cause the ballot box to be sealed pending a further direction by the Board.
Arrangements have been made for conducting the representation vote. However, counsel for the intervener has requested the locations, job sites and projects at which the employees who are affected by this application are working. The respondent's response has been that neither the applicant nor the intervener is to be advised of the location of any such locations, job sites and projects because the respondent does not wish to have the employees interfered with in any way whatsoever. It appears that counsel for the intervener has requested that the intervener be given an opportunity during lunch hours or coffee breaks or before or after work, to speak to the employees, and for that reason requested addresses and locations of sites and projects at which these employees are working. The respondent has informed the Board that its response was to advise the applicant and the intervener that they would be given opportunity to meet in the absence of and free from any interference by the respondent at the respondent's address, at any time they chose on notifying the respondent of the time, during which full opportunity would be given to meet with the employees for the purpose of electioneering. The respondent has advised the Board that while counsel for the intervener wish to grasp this opportunity, he still wishes to maintain the intervener's position that it retained its right to visit the employees at the job site. The respondent has also advised the Board that in view of that impasse, no addresses or locations of job sites have been made available to either the applicant or the intervener and, as understood by counsel for the respondent, no attempt is being made by either of them to meet with the employees at the respondent's offices.
The intervener has advised the Board of its challenges to the list of voters and has alleged that the two employees on the list of voters were not hired through the intervener's offices in violation of the respondent's contractual obligations with the intervener, and consequently are unknown to the intervener. The intervener has advised the Board that it has requested the respondent to advise of the location of job sites where the employees would be engaged so as to communicate with the employees and campaign in the representation vote. In a letter dated June 10, 1980, the intervener has stated:
"The Respondent Company refused to divulge this information claiming that the Intervener would interfere with the working activities of the employees. Notwithstanding an offer of a written undertaking from the Intervener that its representatives would only approach the employees either before or after work, or during their morning or afternoon breaks or during their lunch breaks, the Respondent Company continued to refuse to divulge the location of the employees. The Respondent Company did offer both the Applicant and the Intervener an opportunity to meet with the employees once any morning at its premises. The Intervener accepted this offer but took the position that its right to campaign and its access to the employees could not be restricted only to terms and conditions unilaterally set by the Respondent Company and as a result continued to request the job locations of the employees. The Intervener was still prepared to give its written undertaking not to interfere with the working activities of the employees. Nevertheless the Respondent Company then refused to both provide an opportunity of access to the employees at its premises and to reveal the job locations of the employees. In fact, the Respondent Company specifically advised the Intervener that if any of its representatives were found on the Respondent's premises, the police would be summoned.
In these circumstances, the Intervener submits that it is being deprived of a fair opportunity to campaign in the said representation vote and requests that the Board forthwith direct the Respondent Company to advise all parties of the job locations of the subject employees."
When an application for certification is filed, the applicant is aware of the location of the job site and that information is available to any trade union which desires to file an intervention. In a representation vote the applicant and the intervener, if any, are invariably aware of where the job site is located. This enables the trade unions to satisfy themselves of the identity, number and the type of work performed by the employees who are arguably in the bargaining unit or the voting constituency. In our view, this is an integral part of a representation vote. The offer of access by the respondent does not constitute adequate availability of information to the trade unions in connection with the representation vote. We note that the applicant has offered to confine itself to certain limitations in approaching the two employees who are affected by the result.
Having regard to the foregoing and to the provisions of sections 9 1(12) and 92(2)(f) of the Act, the Board directs the respondent to inform the applicant and the intervener of the location of the job site or site where the two employees are working. If the respondent does not promptly provide this information on request, the Registrar is authorized and directed to release to the applicant and the intervener, the names and addresses of the two employees.