Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1988] OLRB Rep. April 425
3528-87-R United Steelworkers of America, Applicant v. Screen Print Display Advertising Limited, Respondent
BEFORE: Owen V. Gray, Vice-Chair, and Board Members G. O. Shamanski and B. L. Armstrong.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 21, 1988
1The title of this proceeding is amended to describe the respondent as: "Screen Print Display Advertising Limited".
2This is an application for certification.
3The applicant has requested that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken.
4The respondent and the Employee's Association of Screen Print Display Advertising Limited ("the incumbent") are parties to a collective agreement ("the collective agreement") covering the following bargaining unit ("the incumbent's unit"):
All of [the respondent's] employees described in the wage schedule of [the collective agreement dated May 1, 1986 between the respondent and The Employee's Association of Screen Print Display Advertising Limited at its plants in the City of Brantford, save and except foremen/women, persons above the rank of foremen/women, office, creative and sales staff, security guards, part time employees, which are defined as employees whose term of employment is not expected to exceed three months and students employed during the school vacation period.
That will be the voting constituency for the purpose of the pre-hearing representation vote hereafter directed. It appears to the Board on an examination of the records of the applicant and the records of the respondent that not less than thirty-five per cent of the employees of the respondent in that voting constituency were members of the applicant on March 25, 1988, which is the date this application was made.
5We hereby direct that a pre-hearing representation vote be conducted in the aforesaid voting constituency. All those employed in the voting constituency on April 13, 1988 who are so employed on the date the vote is taken will be eligible to vote. Voters will be asked to indicate whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the incumbent in their employment relations with the respondent.
6The matter of the conduct of the vote is referred to the Registrar pursuant to section 68 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.
7The Labour Relations Officer who met with the parties in connection with this application records in his report an agreement of the parties that the appropriate bargaining unit should be described as follows:
All employees of the respondent described in the wage schedule of the agreement in the City of Brantford save and except forepersons, persons above the rank of foreperson, office, creative and sales staff, security guards, persons regularly employed for not more than 24 hours a week and students employed during the school vacation period.
It also appears the parties agree that none of the respondent's employees who fell within the incumbent's unit on either March 25 or April 13, 1987, would have been excluded from the proposed bargaining unit on either date and that none of the employees excluded from the incumbent's unit on those dates would have been included in the proposed unit on either date. Notwithstanding those facts, if the applicant were to be certified in this application for a unit described as the parties propose, it appears the incumbent would continue to have bargaining rights for a unit (however empty and however likely to remain so) of employees regularly employed for not more than 24 hours a week, save and except employees whose term of employment is not expected to exceed three months and others presently excluded from the incumbent's unit. It is not our function to determine the appropriate bargaining unit at this stage. That is dealt with, if at all, after the vote is conducted. Against the possibility that the panel which deals with that issue may then be concerned with the differences in scope between the incumbent's unit and the proposed unit, the parties should address this point in the submissions they file after the vote is conducted.
8The Labour Relations Officer's report notes requests by the applicant and incumbent that they be given copies of the lists of employees filed by the employer. The request is opposed by the respondent.
9The lists in question were reviewed by the applicant and incumbent at the parties' meeting with the Labour Relations Officer. They were able to agree with the respondent about which of those persons listed were employed in the voting constituency (and the proposed unit) on the application date for the purpose of the count. They also agreed on a voters list setting out those who were employed in the voting constituency on April 13, 1988. The later list consists of copies of those portions of the originally-filed portions of the lists (Schedules A, C and D) which contain names of eligible voters, with the names of those not eligible crossed out in such a way that those names can still be read. In accordance with the Board's usual practice, copies of that voters list will be posted in the workplace beside the Board's Notices of Taking of Vote in advance of the conduct of the vote we have directed.
10We can see no reason why the applicant and incumbent should not each be given a copy of the voters list which will be posted in the workplace. This has the effect of giving them all but Schedule B of the lists filed by the employer. We can see no reason to now provide them with copies of Schedule B, since the applicant and incumbent have agreed, having seen it, that no one named in Schedule B fell within the voting constituency or the appropriate bargaining unit at any relevant time. Copies of the voters list will therefore be sent to the applicant and incumbent together with this decision.