[1992] OLRB Rep. April 458
4033-91-R Michael Porter, Applicant v. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, The IBEW Construction Council of Ontario and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 804, Respondents v. Fluker Electrical Mechanical Contractors, Division of H. Fluker Consultants Inc., Intervener
BEFORE: R. O. MacDowell, Alternate Chair, and Board Members D. A. MacDonald and B. L. Armstrong.
APPEARANCES: Elizabeth Forster and Michael Porter for the applicant; Bernard Fishbein for the respondents; Stewart D. Saxe and Nancy-Jo Gray for the intervener.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 21, 1992
- This is an application for termination of the bargaining rights which the respondent union currently holds for a bargaining unit framed as follows:
all electricians and electricians' apprentices employed by the intervener in the industrial, commercial and institutional sector of the construction industry in the Province of Ontario, save and except non-working foremen and persons above the rank of non-working foreman.
A hearing in this matter was held, in Toronto, on Thursday, April 16, 1992. All parties appeared and were represented by counsel. All parties agreed that the union's right to continue to represent the employees (as engaged from time to time) in the above-noted bargaining unit, should be determined by a representation vote. That is the procedure contemplated by section 58(3) of the Act, and the procedure which all parties agree should be employed here.
The unusual feature of this case is that at all material times there has been, and for the foreseeable future there is likely to be only one employee in the bargaining unit: Mr. Porter, the applicant. It would make no sense to trigger the usual mechanics of a representation vote (notices, scrutineers, a ballot box supervised by a Board Officer at a "neutral" location, etc.). There is, in this case, only one individual whose wishes must be canvassed, and it makes no sense to send a Board Officer to Owen Sound, with a ballot box, to receive his one ballot.
Accordingly, the parties are all agreed that the Board will send Mr. Porter a ballot, in the usual form, asking him to indicate whether or not he wishes to continue to be represented by the respondent union. Mr. Porter will return that ballot BY REGISTERED MAIL ON APRIL 30, 1992. That is the date that the Board hereby directs that the representation vote will be taken, and that is the date upon which Mr. Porter must mark his ballot and send it to the Board by registered mail. Upon receipt of that ballot, the Board will deal with this application in accordance with Mr. Porter's wishes.
The Board notes, "for the record", that all parties, by their counsel, are agreed to this procedure. The trade union agrees that the employer has scheduled Mr. Porter to work in the bargaining unit on this day, and neither this procedure nor the date selected will be the subject of any unfair labour practice complaint. It also follows, that if Mr. Porter is to mark his ballot and mail it by registered mail, some accommodation for this purpose will have to be made for him to do so on April 30, 1992.