Canadian Union of Public Employees v. The Mississauga Hospital, 1990 CanLII 5616

Canadian Union of Public Employees v. The Mississauga Hospital

[1990] OLRB Rep. December 1304

2205-90-R Canadian Union of Public Employees, Applicant v. The Mississauga Hospital, Respondent, v. Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers, Local 101, Intervener

BEFORE: Brain Herlich, Vice-Chair, and Board Members W. A. Correll and D. A. Patterson.

DECISION OF THE BOARD; December 12, 1990

1The name of the respondent is amended to read: "The Mississauga Hospital".

2This is an application for certification.

3The applicant has requested that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken.

4It 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 the voting constituency hereinafter described were members of the applicant at the time the application was made.

5Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board directs that a pre-hearing representation vote be taken of the employees of the respondent in the following voting constituency:

all employees of the respondent in Mississauga, Ontario employed as stationary engineers in the boiler room of the hospital and persons primarily engaged as their helpers, save and except the chief and persons above such ranks.

Although this voting constituency differs marginally from the bargaining unit description found in the collective agreement between the respondent and the intervener, the parties agree that the voting constituency (which appears to be in greater conformity with standard Board bargaining unit descriptions) covers the very same employees as the description found in the collective agreement.

6All those employed in the voting constituency on December 6, 1990, who are so employed on the date the vote is taken will be eligible to vote.

7Voters will be asked to indicate whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervener in their employment relations with the respondent.

8The Labour Relations Officer's report indicates the incumbent challenges the Form 9 declaration and the collection of the membership evidence and will provide the Board with written particulars by December 10, 1990 and requests the ballot box be sealed pending the outcome of an inquiry.

9After office hours on December 10, 1990 the Board received a fax transmission from the intervener as follows:

Dec/10/90

RE: File #2205-90-R

Canadian Union of Public Employees; and Mississauga Hospital; and Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers, Local 101.

Further to this unions allegations challenging the Form 9 declaration and challenge of the collection of the membership evidence, we state the following:

1. The applicant's collection process involved the submission of membership cards and moneys' through the mail. No questions were asked as to the origin of the one dollar ($1.00) prescribed for collected.

2. The collectors were not present during the filling in of information and collection of the one dollar fee. The cards were countersigned although not at the time of collection.

3. The Form 9 declaration did not make sufficient enquiries as to ascertain that the process had been followed correctly and truthfully and therefore did not have sufficient "personal knowledge" to make the Form 9 declaration.

4. The Form 9 declarant has been mislead by the collectors as to the process carried out during the signing and filing of the cards submitted to support the unions application.

5. The union requests the "board" to conduct an investigation into the above matters and allegations with respect to the following cards submitted:

[name deleted by the Board]

[name deleted by the Board] [name deleted by the Board] [name deleted by the Board]

6. The union further requests the Board to inquire as to the process of collection carried out by [name deleted by the Board] and [name deleted by the Board].

Also attached to the transmission were the following documents:

(CUPE – Receipt for Initiation Fee not included)

S A M P L E

HERE’ A CARD THAT MEANS A 'GOOD DEAL' FOR YOU

AND YOUR PAMILY

TO BECOME A MEMBER OF CUPE, COMPLETE THE ATTACHED 'APPLICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP CARD' AND RETURN IT WITH YOUR DOLLAR* IN THE POSTAGE PAID PRE-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE PROVIDED FOR THAT PURPOSE...

COMPLETE BOTH SIDES OF THE WHITE CARD IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER .......

THE RECEIPT PORTION OF THE CARD WILL BE PROCESSED BY AN AGENT OF CUPE AND YOUR RECEIPT WILL BE REMITTED TO YOU.

(CUPE RECEIPT FOR INITIATION FEE not included)

10As the intervener has made no specific or explicit allegation of non-pay or non-sign, the Board does not see any purpose in conducting its own examination into the allegations.

11To the extent that the allegations challenge the propriety of membership evidence collected by mail, the parties attention is directed to the Board's decision in Fontenac-Lennox and Addington County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, [1988] OLRB Rep. Sept. 888 and the cases cited therein at paragraph 4. We note that the Form 9 filed by the applicant contains no information regarding collection of membership evidence by mail.

12In view of the allegations filed, the Board directs that the ballot box containing the ballots cast in the representation vote directed herein be sealed and the ballots not be counted until the parties have been given full opportunity to present their evidence and make their submissions.

13Should the intervener, or any other party, wish to make further submissions or request a hearing in this matter, they should do so in the manner prescribed by section 70(2) of the Board's Rules of Procedure. In the absence of any request for a hearing, the Board may dispose of the matter on the basis of the material before it.

14The matter is referred to the Registrar.