Ontario Labour Relations Board
[1989] OLRB Rep. August 846
3195-88-R Teamsters Local Union 938, Applicant v. The Corporation of the City of Gloucester, Respondent v. The Association of Municipal Employees, Intervener
BEFORE: M. A. Nairn, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. A. Correll and H. Peacock.
APPEARANCES: Linda Huebscher, Mike McBride and John Raudoy for the applicant; Jacques A. Emond and Jock Jardine for the respondent; Sean McGee and Francois Dutrisac for the intervener.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 4, 1989
Reasons for Decision
1This is an application for certification in which a pre-hearing vote was taken pursuant to a decision of the Board (differently constituted) dated April 21, 1989. Further to that decision the ballot box was sealed and the ballots cast were not counted pending the hearing of certain matters remaining in dispute.
2At the hearing convened to deal with those matters, the respondent and intervener challenged the trade union status of the applicant. However, after hearing evidence, both the respondent and intervener indicated to the Board that they were satisfied that the applicant had properly shown itself to be a trade union within the meaning of the Labour Relations Act and made no further submissions on the issue.
3The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section l(I)(p) of the Labour Relations Act.
4The parties remained in dispute with respect to whether or not the applicant was entitled to bring this application for certification. The respondent and intervener both asserted that the applicant did not have the jurisdiction under its local Charter to organize these employees situate in Gloucester in eastern Ontario and secondly, that even if such jurisdiction did entitle the applicant to organize these employees, that a six month bar imposed against a sister local following an unsuccessful vote should operate as against the applicant as well. The applicant ("Local 938") disputed both these assertions.
5Some of the history leading up to this application was reviewed in the Board's decision of April 21, 1989 as follows:
- The unit represented by the intervener was recently the subject of a certification application in Board File 2358-88-R, in which Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 91 ("Local 91") was the applicant. In that application, the Board directed that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken in a voting constituency described as consisting of:
all hourly and salaried permanent employees of the Recreation Facilities and the Parks Divisions of the Recreation and Parks Department of the respondent.
Clarity Note: The employees in [the voting constituency] are those employees listed in Appendices A & B attached to the collective agreement between the Corporation of the City of Gloucester and the Association of Municipal Employees.
The vote so directed was conducted on February 13, 1989. Not more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast were in favour of Local 91. Its application was therefore dismissed on March 28. 1989, in a decision which noted that:
- The Board will not entertain an application for certification by the applicant with respect to any of the employees of the respondent in voting constituency #1 within the period of six months from the date hereof.
6In dealing with the issue of whether or not Local 938 has the jurisdiction to organize these employees, the respondent asks the Board to interpret the local's Charter and more specifically the words, "... brewery, soft drink, distillery, distributors and miscellaneous workers in the Province of Ontario, Canada...". The respondent asserts (and the intervener supports the assertion) that the words "miscellaneous workers" refer only to a category of miscellaneous workers within the brewery, soft drink, and distillery industry and not to a more "generic" worker employed anywhere in Ontario. Additionally, the intervener argues that "miscellaneous workers" would not include "public employees" as this group is specifically referred to in the International Union's Constitution.
7The respondent asserts that Local 938 by virtue of this alleged limitation on its jurisdiction from the International does not have the authority to organize these workers; that to do so Local 938 would be