[1986] OLRB Rep. March 361
0471-85-R Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, Applicant, v. Scarborough Board of Education, Respondent
[This decision was inadvertently omitted from the August, 1985 issue: Editor]
BEFORE: Harry Freedman, Vice-Chairman, and Board Members I. M. Stamp and S. O 'Flynn.
APPEARANCES: C. M. Mitchell, D. Lennox and Bill Fisher for the applicant; John W. Woon, Mark Strang, C. R. Mason and R. A. Mitchell for the respondent.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 20, 1985
1The hearing in this matter arose as a result of a request by the applicant for reconsideration of the Board's decision of July 16, 1985. For reasons given at the hearing of this matter, the Board dismissed the applicant's request for reconsideration, but dealt with the request for disclosure of names and addresses of the persons in the voting constituency on its merits.
2Following the submissions of the parties on that point, the Board recessed and returned to deliver the following oral ruling:
ORAL RULING
The applicant requests the Board to direct the respondent to provide it with the names and addresses of the persons that may come within the voting constituency described by the Board in its decision of July 4, 1985. For reasons given earlier in this hearing, the Board treated the applicant's request as a fresh request made at a time prior to the Board commencing its mailed ballot voting procedure in this matter.
The essence of the applicant's submission is that the voting constituency is comprised of such widely dispersed individuals, it is effectively precluded from communicating with those persons during the campaign period prior to the vote and relies on the York Board of Education decision on this point, [1985] OLRB Rep. May 767.
The respondent resists the applicant's request. It submitted that the portion of the York Board of Education decision directing the employer to disclose the names and addresses of the affected employees was obiter, and is distinguishable on a number of grounds. It further submitted that the applicant could communicate through the media and through its own members who are employed in the respondent's schools. It also submitted that such an order would invite unions to make applications for the purpose of obtaining such lists which would be an abuse of process and further would encourage the respondent to communicate with its employees when it might otherwise not be disposed to do so.
We are satisfied that any concerns about ulterior motives for filing certification applications can be dealt with by the Board through its power to impose a bar on an unsuccessful applicant.
As for the other concerns expressed by the respondent, we are persuaded that the opportunity to communicate with employees is important in permitting employees to properly assess the consequences of choosing to vote for or against representation by the applicant. The composition of the voting constituency in this case is such that we are satisfied, for the reasons expressed by the Board in Part IX of the York Board of Education decision, that the information requested is necessary to adequately communicate with employees.
The respondent may choose to communicate or not with its employees. It has the means to do so; the choice of communication belongs to it. In our opinion, that same choice ought to be afforded to the applicant in these types of cases.
Therefore, the Board directs the respondent to file one copy of the names and addresses of the employees in the voting constituency with the Board and with the applicant forthwith.
The Board also observes that the applicant made it clear to the Board that it will be taking issue with the principles pronounced by the Board in the York Board of Education case with respect to determining the composition of the voting constituency.
3This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
4This matter is referred to the Registrar.