International Woodworkers of America v. United Sawmill Limited
[1987] OLRB Rep. December 1612
1473-87-R International Woodworkers of America, Applicant v. United Sawmill Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: Owen V. Gray, Vice-Chain, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and J. Redshaw.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 30, 1987
No statement of desire to make representations has been filed with the Board within the time fixed under subsection 2 of section 70 of the Board's Rules of Procedure following the taking of the pre-heaning representation vote pursuant to the Board's direction of October 21, 1987.
The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section l(l)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.
The parties were not in agreement on the description of the appropriate bargaining unit before the vote was conducted. The applicant took the position that the appropriate bargaining unit in this application should be described as:
all employees of the respondent, United Sawmill Limited (Woods) Hearst, Ontario, save and except foremen; persons above the rank of foremen; office and sales staff, currently represented by Local 2995, Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union.
The respondent's position was that the unit should be described
as per collective agreement Art. III Paragraphs: 301(a), 301(b) [sic].
The collective agreement referred to is a collective agreement between the respondent and the Lumber and Sawmill Workers Union Local 2995, of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (hereafter referred to as "the incumbent") with effect from September 1, 1984 to August 31, 1987. The applicant and respondent did agree to the exclusion of "scalers." It was not clear from the material, however, whether "scalers" were included in the incumbent's unit.
As no interested party has requested a hearing, we have the option of disposing of this application on the material before us without conducting a hearing: ss. 70(5), Rules of Procedure. That is so even though the parties are not in agreement on the description of the appropriate bargaining unit. While we might nevertheless schedule a hearing if we felt that the material before us was an insufficient basis on which to base a decision, that is not the case here.
The unit represented by the incumbent is ordinarily treated as the appropriate unit in a displacement application such as this. That principle guided our determination and description of the voting constituency for the purpose of the pre-hearing representation vote. In the absence of representations explaining why we should do otherwise, we will adopt our description of the voting constituency as the description of the appropriate bargaining unit.
Accordingly, we find that
all employees of the respondent engaged in woods operations on the limits and on the worksites of the respondent
constitute a unit of employees of the respondent appropriate for collective bargaining. For purposes of clarity, the word "employees" as used in this bargaining unit description includes all those employed in job classifications set out in the wage schedule attached to and forming part of the September 1,1984 to August 31, 1987 collective agreement between the respondent and the Lumber and Sawmill Workers' Union Local 2995, of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, including those who are employed in job classifications~ if any, which have been established and become part of the aforesaid wage schedule during the term of that agreement.
The Board is satisfied that not less than thirty-five per cent of the employees of the respondent in the bargaining unit were members of the applicant at the time the application was made.
On the taking of the pre-hearing representation vote directed by the Board, more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast were cast in favour of the applicant.
A certificate will issue to the applicant.
The Registrar will destroy the ballots cast in the pre-hearing representation vote taken in this matter following the expiration of 30 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 panties before the expiration of such 30-day period.