1902-00-R Local Union 1075 National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW Local 1075), Applicant v. Aramark Canada Limited (formerly Versa Services Limited) (full time employees), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 268, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Stephen Raymond, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague .
DECISION OF STEPHEN RAYMOND, VICE-CHAIR, AND BOARD MEMBER R. R. MONTAGUE; October 3, 2000
This is an application for certification.
The applicant has applied to represent the employees in the following bargaining unit:
all employees of Aramark Canada Limited at Lakehead University in the City of Thunder Bay (including lead hands and the position of storeskeeper), save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, office and clerical staff, persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four (24) hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period.
The intervenor raises many issues about this application for certification. Among other things, the intervenor states that the application should be dismissed because this is the trade union’s second attempt at representing the employees in the bargaining unit. In Board File No. 1522-00-R, CAW-Canada applied to represent these same employees. This is an application by Local 1075 of the CAW.
In Board File No. 1522-00-R, CAW-Canada lost a representation vote to represent these employees. No final decision has been rendered in that matter. A hearing date was set for September 25, 2000 but was adjourned by the parties for reasons that do not appear to be relevant to this application at this time.
The Labour Relations Act, 1995 specifically confers power on the Board to deal with situations such as this. Section 111(3) states:
(3) Despite sections 7 and 63, where an application has been made for certification of a trade union as bargaining agent for employees in a bargaining unit or for a declaration that the trade union no longer represents the employees in a bargaining unit and a final decision of the application has not been issued by the Board at the time a subsequent application for the certification or for the declaration is made with respect to any of the employees affected by the original application, the Board may,
(a) treat the subsequent application as having been made on the date of the making of the original application;
(b) postpone consideration of the subsequent application until a final decision has been issued on the original application and thereafter consider the subsequent application but subject to any final decision issued by the Board on the original application; or
(c) refuse to entertain the subsequent application.
In this application, the Board considers that it is most appropriate to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 111(3)(b). That is, consideration of this application will be postponed until after a final decision has been issued in Board File No. 1522-00-R and thereafter this application will be considered but will be subject to the final decision of the Board in Board File No. 1522-00-R.
This application is therefore adjourned sine die pending the final decision in Board File No. 1522-00-R. Any of the parties may request that this application be considered further following the release of that final decision. Should no request for further consideration be made within ten (10) working days of the date of the final decision in Board File No. 1522-00-R, this application will be deemed dismissed.
This panel is not seized.
“Stephen Raymond”
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON ; October 3, 2000
- I dissent. I would dismiss the application pursuant to section 111(3)(c) of the Act. The subsequent application by the local of the CAW is a clear abuse of the Board’s process.
“J. A. Ronson ”