United Food and Commercial Workers International Union v. Primo Importing and Distributing Co. Ltd.
[1983] OLRB Rep. September 1560
0756-82-R United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Applicant, v. Primo Importing and Distributing Co. Ltd. Respondent, v. Primo Employees' Association, Intervener.
BEFORE: R. D. Howe, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and S. Cooke
APPEARANCES: James Hayes, Vincent Gentile, Ron Lebi and Stan Henderson for the applicant; R. M. Parry, Arthur Pelliccione and Angelo Capozzi for the respondent; M. G. Horan and M. Zongolli for the intervener.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 13, 1983
In a majority decision (with Board Member J. A. Ronson dissenting) dated June 28, 1983 in this application for certification, the Board directed that a representation vote be taken of the employees of the respondent in the voting constituency described in paragraph 26 of that decision. In that majority decision, the Board also declared that the respondent had contravened section 64 of the Act and granted various remedies under section 89 of the Act, to rectify the adverse impact of the respondent's contraventions of the Act.
On the taking of the aforementioned representation vote directed by the Board, not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast were cast in favour of the applicant.
By letters dated July 20, July 28, and September 1, 1983, counsel for the applicant filed with the Board a number of allegations of improper or irregular conduct by the respondent and by Marcello Zangolli, the President of the intervener. At the September 8, 1983 hearing scheduled by the Board for the purpose of hearing the evidence and representations of the parties with respect to those allegations, counsel for the applicant indicated that the only remedy requested by his client was certification without a vote under section 8 of the Act. After considering the initial submissions of the parties, the Board called upon the applicant to show cause why the application ought not to be dismissed on the ground that the application, including the allegations contained in Mr. Hayes' letters of July 20, July 28 and September I, 1983, did not make out a prima facie case for the remedy requested. After hearing and considering the applicant's submissions concerning that matter, the Board gave the following oral ruling, which is hereby confirmed:
In the circumstances of this case, we find it to be unnecessary to call upon Mr. Parry and Mr. Horan since we are unanimously of the view that the application, including the allegations contained in Mr. Hayes' letters of July 20, July 28, and September 1, 1983, does not make out a prima facie case for certification without a vote under section 8 of the Act, which is the sole remedy requested by the applicant. If those allegations were duly proven, the most which they would prompt the Board to do in the circumstances is to order that another representation vote be conducted after further meetings had been held, perhaps in conjunction with other remedies of the type contained in our decision of June 28, 1983 in this matter. We would not be prepared in the circumstances of this case to exercise our discretion under section 8 of the Act to certify the applicant without a representation vote as we are not satisfied that the situation has changed materially from the situation described in that decision. Since the applicant has expressly indicated that it is not requesting that further meetings be directed or that a further representation vote be held, this application will be dismissed with the usual six month bar.
The application is therefore dismissed.
The Board will not entertain an application for certification by the applicant with respect to any of the employees of the respondent in the voting constituency within the period of six months from the date hereof.
The Registrar will destroy the ballots cast in the representation vote taken in this matter following the expiration of thirty days from the date of this decision unless a statement requesting that the ballots should not be destroyed is received by the Board from one of the parties before the expiration of such thirty day period.