[1984] OLRB Rep. April 651
2998-83-R Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers, Applicant, v. The Sisters of St. Joseph of the Diocese of London in Ontario Operating St. Joseph's Hospital at Sarnia, Ontario, Respondent.
BEFORE: Kevin M. Burkett, Alternate Chairman and Board Members F. W. Murray and C. A. Ballentine.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 24, 1984
This is an application for certification in which the applicant seeks leave of the Board to withdraw the application. The respondent, citing two previous unsuccessful applications, asks the Board to dismiss the application and impose a bar upon the filing of a subsequent application for a period of one year. The applicant, in support of its position that a bar not be imposed, points out that the first unsuccessful application was in respect of a nine (9) man maintenance unit that the Board found not to be appropriate for purposes of collective bargaining. The instant application, and the one immediately before it, are in respect of all support employees. The Form 9 filed by the union and the lists of employees filed by the respondent indicated that there are approximately 160 employees in this bargaining unit.
In the Patchoque Plymouth Hawkesbury Mills case 11972] OLRB Rep. July 747 the Board briefly set out in paragraph 7 those types of situations which have led the Board to exercise its discretion under section 103(2)(j) and impose a bar for a specific period of time on subsequent certification applications. The third type of situation referred to in the Patchoque case supra, is analogous to the case at hand and pertains to those instances where the Board is asked to exercise its discretion following the dismissal of a series of applications over a short period of time which cover essentially the same employees. In this regard the Patchoque case supra refers to the J. W Crooks Company case [1972] OLRB Rep. Feb. 126 wherein the Board imposed a six month bar following the dismissal of an application which was the fourth unsuccessful application brought within a period of little more than three months. In the Ken Bunyak's Bus Lines case, Board File No. 5714-74-R, the Board found that a second unsuccessful application within a short period of time did not warrant the imposition of a bar to a third application. Although each case must be decided on its particular merits, these cases establish parameters which in the absence of special circumstances are persuasive.
The first application, as we have noted, was in respect of nine maintenance employees. Although these nine employees fall within the much larger all-employee unit (approximately 160 employees) for which the union has sought bargaining rights in this and the previous application, it can hardly be said that the first application pertains to the same employee group as would cause the degree of unrest and uncertainty necessary to support the imposition of a bar to a subsequent application.
Having regard to the foregoing we hereby dismiss the application but we do not impose a bar to the filing of a subsequent application.