```markdown
[1997] OLRB REP. JULY/AUGUST 657
1305-97-R United Steelworkers of America, Applicant v. North American Security Services Inc., Responding Party v. Canadian Union of Professional Security-Guards, Intervenor
BEFORE: Laura Trachuk, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF VICE-CHAIR LAURA TRACHUK AND BOARD MEMBER H. PEACOCK; July 18, 1997
1. This is an application for certification.
2. The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
3. Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board further finds that:
all employees of North American Security Services Inc. in the Province of Ontario, save and except Managers, Supervisors, Mobile Patrol Officers, Control Centre Operators, Sales/Service/Consultant Personnel, Head Office Support Staff (i.e. secretarial, clerical, etc.), Technicians and Investigators,
constitute a unit of employees of the responding party appropriate for collective bargaining.
4. It appears to the majority on an examination of the evidence provided with the application that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the bargaining unit proposed in the application for certification were members of the union at the time the application was made.
5. Having regard to the agreement of the parties as to the appropriate bargaining unit, the Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of North American Security Services Inc. in the Province of Ontario, save and except Managers, Supervisors, Mobile Patrol Officers, Control Centre Operators, Sales/Service/Consultant Personnel. Head Office Support Staff (i.e. secretarial, clerical, etc.), Technicians and Investigators.
6. The vote will be held on August 5 & 7, 1997. Other vote arrangements will be as directed by the Registrar and set out on the attached Notice of Vote and of Hearing.
7. All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on July 16, 1997, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on July 16, 1997, the certification application filing date, include employees who were not at work on that date, so long as there is a reasonable expectation of their return to employment.
8. Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor in their employment relations with the responding party.
9. The applicant filed a previous application for part of the bargaining unit described in paragraph 3. That application was withdrawn with leave of the Board on July II, 1997 prior to a representation vote. The responding party and the intervenor object to this new application on the grounds that the applicant should be barred from filing a new application as a result of withdrawing the previous one. The Board considers it appropriate to proceed with holding a representation vote. The issue with respect to the "bar" of this application will be dealt with at the hearing after the vote.
10. The responding party has raised an issue as to whether the applicant has provided membership evidence that indicates that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the bargaining unit were members of the union at the time the application was made. This dispute appears to arise because the responding party asserts that there are 253 members of the bargaining unit and the union asserts that there are 228. In the circumstances, the Board considers it appropriate to hold the representation vote and to determine this issue at the hearing after the vote. The majority also considers it appropriate to count the ballots. Board Member Ronson dissents.
11. The applicant has requested that the Board direct the responding party to provide it with the names and addresses of all of the bargaining unit employees. The Board declines to do so at this time.
12. The applicant and the intervenor request that the Board mail notice of the vote to all of the employees in the bargaining unit. The responding party proposes that notice be provided through its email system. The Board has more confidence that notice will reach the employees in these circumstances through the mail. The Board therefore hereby directs the responding party to mail copies of this decision, as well as the Board's "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" to all the individuals on its Schedules "A" and "B". Those schedules are to be provided to the applicant and the intervenor. If the applicant and the intervenor, after reviewing the lists, are of the view that notices should be sent to other individuals because they are included in the voting constituency outlined above, they must advise the Board and the responding party within twenty-four hours of receipt of this decision. The responding party must then mail notices to the additional persons named by the applicant.
13. The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" adjacent to the "Notice to Employees of Application for Certification". These copies must remain posted for 30 days.
14. Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue remaining in dispute which relates to the application for certification must file a detailed statement of representations with the Board and deliver it to the other parties, so that it is received by the Board within seven days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays on which the Board is closed) of the date on which the vote is taken.
15. The matter is referred to the Registrar.
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON; July 18, 1997
I would seal the ballot box until any problems concerning the Board's jurisdiction have been resolved.
minicounsel