[1998] OLRB REP. JULY/AUGUST 718
1350-98-R Chamoun Azzam, Applicant v. Canadian Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW Canada) and its Local 27, Responding Party v. Siemens Electric Limited Automotive Systems North American Motor Operations Division (NAMO), Intervenor
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 5, 1998
1The applicant has applied to the Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 for a declaration that the responding party no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit for which it is the bargaining agent.
2This application was filed on July 15, 1998. The employees who are affected by this application are covered by a collective agreement between the responding party and Siemens Electric Limited.
3The application filed in this matter indicated that there were 400 employees employed in the bargaining unit affected by the application.
4The respondent trade union's Response filed in this matter indicated that there were 906 employees in the bargaining unit comprised of 678 active employees and 228 employees on lay-off. The intervention filed by the employer indicated that there were 913 employees on the seniority list, approximately 630 of whom were active employees, with the remainder laid off.
5In view of the disparity which existed between the applicant's determination of the number of employees in the bargaining unit and the trade union's and employer's information, on July 24, 1998 the Board directed the applicant to provide submissions, if any, as to the reasons for the disparity.
6On July 30, 1998 counsel for the applicant wrote to the Board and advised that the applicant's estimate of 400 employees was a good faith estimate. Counsel also advised that the applicant has no contrary basis on which to challenge the accuracy of the list submitted by the employer.
7We find therefore that there is no dispute that there are at least 600 employees employed in the bargaining unit.
8Accordingly, it appears to the Board on an examination of the evidence before it, that less than forty per cent of the employees in the bargaining unit had expressed a wish not to be represented by the trade union at the time the application was filed.
9In the circumstances, the remaining issues raised by the respondent in its Response need not be determined.
10The application is therefore dismissed.