[1982] OLRB Rep. May 656
2613-81-R Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Applicant, v. Bruce Peninsula & District Memorial Hospital, Respondent
BEFORE: M. G. Mitchnick, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members J. D. Bell and H. Simon.
APPEARANCES: Barbara Linds for the applicant; Judith Clarkson, Peter Walker and Maria Simmie for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 3, 1982
This is an application for certification.
The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section l(l)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.
The application has been brought with respect to the "part-time" unit of support staff at the respondent's Hospital in Wiarton. The applicant was certified in August of 1981 as bargaining agent for the "full-time" support staff unit at the same Hospital. The respondent argued at that time that the appropriate bargaining unit would include the employees of Earl R. Harris Memorial Hospital located at Lion's Head, some twenty-five miles from Wiarton. Earl Memorial at that point in time was operated by the Red Cross Society, but plans for turning control over to the Board of Governors of the respondent were in the making. The Board rejected the respondent's argument.
The take-over of Earl Memorial Hospital has now been completed, effective April 1, 1982, and the respondent has renewed its argument with respect to the present application. There are twelve part-time employees at Bruce Peninsula & District Memorial Hospital, and six at Earl R. Harris Memorial Hospital. The evidence is that one of the part-time employees is already being scheduled at both Hospitals, at the employee's request, and the respondent, would like to create a "float team" of one or two additional part-time employees who would be willing to be scheduled in the same way. The respondent relies upon this "interchange" of employees, together with the common administration, to support its argument for a bargaining unit encompassing both Hospitals.
As the parties are aware, the Board's normal practice is to look at an appropriate unit in terms of the municipal boundaries within which a facility is located. In this case that would mean the Town of Wiarton, and that is the basis on which the applicant has organized, both in the full-time unit (for which it was recently certified) and now in the part-time unit. This fairly rigid policy of the Board meets two concerns of the labour relations community: it provides an element of balance between the viability or rationality of bargaining units and the right to self-organize, and it provides a measure of predictability, along the lines of which parties can conduct themselves at the organizational stages of a certification campaign. Like every policy of the Board, of course, it is not without its exceptions. In Adams Furniture Co. Limited, [1975] OLRB Rep. June 491, for example, the Board noted its concern over the fact that the bargaining unit sought by the applicant transcended a number of municipal boundaries, and adverted to its normal policy in that regard. The Board then went on to state at page 492:
"This does not mean, however, that a regional bargaining unit will never be appropriate. Rather, it simply means that such a unit must be consistent with two basic considerations 1) the right of self organization; 2) the requirement that collective bargaining relationships be viable."
and then noted at page 493:
"In this case, the applicant has organized all but one of the stores falling within its proposed bargaining unit description, virtually eliminating any interference with the right of self-organization. This means that in this case considerations of viability assume greater importance."
- In the instant case, by contrast, there has been no expression of interest in collective bargaining by the employees at the Lion's Head Centre, and the Board would need very compelling reasons to alter its normal practice in municipality-wide bargaining units in such a way as would either result in employees at Lion's Head being "swept in" to the bargaining unit essentially on the wishes of employees at Wiarton, or in the wishes of employees at Wiarton for self-organization being frustrated by the disinclination of employees at Lion's Head. This is a concern which the Board has to weigh even within the boundaries of a single municipality, where the tests laid down in Usarco, [1967] OLRB Rep. Sept. 525, normally are applied. For example, in K-Mart Canada Limited, [1981] OLRB Rep. Sept. 1250, the Board noted:
"Where it is raised as an issue the Board must consider the effect of a broader based unit upon employee access to collective bargaining within the industry. In addition, the Board must recognize the wishes of the employees affected by the particular application to bargain collectively. This latter consideration requires the Board to take into account the pattern of organization in the case before it and to balance the pattern of organization against the disruptive effects of excessive fragmentation."
In the present case, the potential disruption to the respondent is not such as to cause the Board to grant the wider bargaining unit which the respondent seeks. The application is for part-time employees only, and the intended "float" poo1 appears to be a limited one. The one employee now accepting assignments at both institutions did so before the merging of control as well, apparently without difficulty. The respondent continues to keep separate books for accounting purposes, and the local supervision at each facility has been retained. There is, in addition, already in place a bargaining relationship for full-time employees which is confined to the staff employed at Wiarton.
The Board finds that all employees of the respondent at Wiarton, Ontario regularly employed for not more than twenty-four hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period, save and except professional medical staff, registered and graduate nurses, paramedical employees, office and clerical staff, supervisors and persons above the rank of supervisor, constitute a unit of employees of the respondent appropriate for collective bargaining.
The Board is satisfied on the basis of all the evidence before it that more than fifty-five per cent of the employees of the respondent in the bargaining unit, at the time the application was made, were members of the applicant on March 24, 1982, the terminal date fixed for this application and the date which the Board determines, under section 103(2)(j) of the Labour Relations Act, to be the time for the purpose of ascertaining membership under section 7(1) of the said Act.
A certificate will issue to the applicant.