National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Sunnyside Home (Full Time)
Court File No.: 2668-00-R Date: December 8, 2000 Ontario Labour Relations Board
Applicant: National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) Responding Party: The Regional Municipality of Waterloo Sunnyside Home (Full Time) Intervenor: Service Employees International Union, Local 220
Before: Caroline Rowan, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD
1This is a displacement application for certification.
2The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
3It appears to the Board on an examination of only the information provided in the application and the information and membership evidence filed by the applicant (see section 8(3) of the Act), 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. Further, this application appears to be timely.
4The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all Full-Time employees who are employed at the Sunnyside Home at Kitchener, hereinafter called the “Home” save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, registered and graduate nurses, administrative assistant, persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four (24) hours per week, and students employed during the school vacation period, or registered at a recognized education institution.
5The vote will be held on December 12, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
6All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on December 5, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on December 5, 2000, 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.
7Voters will be asked to indicate whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor in their employment relations with the responding party.
8The intervenor alleges unfair practices in respect of this application. Further, the intervenor has filed submissions that the application be dismissed because of an apparent breach of an order of the Superior Court of Justice and because of a breach of the Constitution of the Canadian Labour Congress. The Board has considered similar submissions in previous decisions and found no support for the intervenor’s position. The Board in this instance having considered such submissions of the intervenor is not prepared to accede to this request. In the alternative the intervenor submits that the Board not hold a vote until a decision is rendered with respect to the matters raised by the intervenor. In the further alternative, the intervenor submits that the ballot box ought to be sealed pending a hearing into the matters raised by the intervenor. The Board has considered such submissions and is not prepared to accede to either such alternative request.
9There is also a difference between the parties concerning the appropriate description of the employees of the responding party in the bargaining unit. The intervenor refers to “all Full-Time employees who are employed at the Sunnyside Home at Kitchener, hereinafter called the “Home”…” whereas the applicant refers to “All employees of The Regional Municipality of Waterloo at Sunnyside Home at Kitchener” and the responding party refers to “All employees of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo employed at Sunnyside Home in Kitchener, Ontario”. If any individual is in dispute as a result of these differences, that individual shall be entitled to cast a ballot. Any ballot shall be segregated and not counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
10The responding party also objects to the proposed exclusion of part-time employees from the bargaining unit. The responding party has raised a similar objection to the exclusion of full-time employees in Board File No. 2667-00-R. The responding party takes the position that there should be a single unit of full and part-time employees. In the circumstances, the Board directs that the ballot box be sealed and that the applications in Board File Nos. 2667-00-R and 2668-00-R be listed together for hearing to address this issue.
11The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" adjacent to each of the posted copies of the "Notice to Employees of Application for Certification". These copies must remain posted for 30 days.
12Any 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 five days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays on which the Board is closed) of the date on which the vote is taken. Representations with respect to any status dispute must be made in accordance with the directions provided in Information Bulletin No. 4: Status Disputes in Certification Applications (Non-Construction).
13The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Caroline Rowan”
for the Board