United Steelworkers of America v. Empco-Fab Ltd.
[1980] OLRB Rep. October 1391
0072-80-R United Steelworkers of America, Applicant, v. Empco-Fab Ltd., Respondent, v. Group of Employees, Objectors.
BEFORE: George W. Adams, Chairman and Board Members J. D. Bell and W. F. Rutherford.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 2, 1980
This is an application for certification.
By decision dated May 14th, 1980 a representation vote was directed with respect to all employees of the respondent company in Whitby, Ontario, save and except foremen, persons above the rank of foreman, and office and sales staff. This representation vote was conducted on July 3rd, 1980.
Twenty employees cast ballots. Ten such ballots were marked in favour of the applicant and nine ballots were marked against the applicant. Mr. L. Chisamore presented himself to the returning officer to cast a ballot. Mr. Chisamore's name was not one on the voting list. However, he was permitted to vote and his ballot was segregated and not counted. In signing the consent and waiver form, the representative of the respondent reserved his right to investigate the status of Mr. Chisamore.
On July 25th, 1980 the Board appointed a labour relations officer to inquire into the duties and responsibilities of L. Chisamore. The report of the labour relations officer is dated September 3rd, 1980.
Mr. Chisamore is employed as a welder who spends seventy (70) percent of his time welding with the rest of his time allocated to testing and checking welds under the company's Canadian Welding Bureau program. He reports to Albert Blower, a foreman. His monthly report on welds is sent to the Canadian Welding Bureau. This report lists employees and what qualifications they hold. He acts as a conduit to the employer with respect to the works conformity to C.W.B. standards. He makes no recommendations nor does he have any control over what actions the employer should take on the basis of his report. He does not participate in the hiring process, and he is an hourly rated employee. He plays no role with respect to the discipline of employees. He can grant no time off.
From all of the above it is clear that L. Chisamore is an employee of the respondent and thus, he comes within the bargaining unit. However, the counting of Chisamore's ballot would, in the circumstances, reveal how he voted. All employees who participate in a representation election are entitled to a secret ballot vote. The parties before this Board know that when they agree to count the ballots in circumstances as those in the instant case they run the risk of the Board directing another representation vote in order to protect the secrecy of the wishes of the employees who cast segregated ballots. See Corporation of the Township of Chinguacousy, [1973] OLRB Rep. July 380 and Super City Discount Foods Limited et al, [1977] OLRB Rep. March 175. Therefore, the Board directs that another representation vote be taken.
The representation vote will be taken of the employees of the respondent 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.