Teamsters Local Union No. 419 v. Lantic Sugar Limited
1559-00-R Teamsters Local Union No. 419, Applicant v. Lantic Sugar Limited, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF ANTHONY BROWN, VICE-CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER D. A. PATTERSON; August 30, 2000
1This is an 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.
4The responding party disputes the applicant’s estimate of the number of employees in the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit. Furthermore, the responding party contends that the applicant’s bargaining unit could not be appropriate.
5The responding party gives notice under section 8.1 and does not agree that the ballots should be counted. It asserts that the persons in the proposed bargaining unit are “contract drivers” who are not its employees or dependent contractors. In the circumstances, the Board directs that the ballot box from the representation vote be sealed. The ballots cast shall be individually segregated. The ballots will not be counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
6Counsel for Advantage Personnel, a company named in the responding party’s response, has advised the Board by letter dated August 30, 2000 that Advantage Personnel intends to intervene in this application on the basis that certain of the persons included in the proposed bargaining unit are employees of Atlantic Personnel and not of Lantic Sugar Limited.
7The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of Lantic Sugar Limited working at 198 New Toronto Street, Etobicoke, Ontario, save and except foremen, persons above the rank of foreman, office, clerical and sales staff and employees covered by an existing collective agreement.
8The vote will be held on September 1, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
9All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on August 25, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on August 25, 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.
10Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
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, other than status disputes, including any matters relating to the representation vote, 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.
“Anthony Brown”
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON; August 30, 2000
- The employer has pleaded that section 8.1 applies. As a result, there should be no vote until the issues are dealt with at a hearing. If a vote is ordered, then at the least, the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues are resolved.
“J. A. Ronson”