Ontario Labour Relations Board
1717-00-R Teamsters Local Union No. 419, Applicant v. Michelin North America (Canada) Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Caroline Rowan, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 14, 2000
Decision
[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 (the “Act”).
[3]. It 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.
[4]. The responding party disputes the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the applicant's proposed bargaining unit. Furthermore, the responding party proposes a different bargaining unit than that proposed by the applicant and it contends that the applicant's bargaining unit could not be appropriate. It gives notice under section 8.1 of the Act.
[5]. The Board finds that the bargaining unit described in the application could be appropriate. After comparing the membership evidence provided by the applicant as against the information provided by the responding party, the Board finds that the numerical difference between the parties is significant. The Board therefore directs that the ballot box be sealed and the ballots not counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
[6]. The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of Michelin North America (Canada) Inc. working in the City of Mississauga, Ontario save and except the operations manager, persons above the rank of operations manager, office, clerical, sales staff and persons employed through employment agencies.
[7]. The vote will be held on September 18, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
[8]. All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on September 11, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on September 11, 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.
[9]. There is a difference between the parties concerning the appropriate managerial exclusion. The applicant proposes a unit that excludes “team leaders, persons above the rank of team leader”, whereas the responding party proposes a unit that excludes “the operations manager, persons above the rank of operations manager”. If any individual is in dispute as a result of this difference, that individual shall identify himself or herself as occupying a disputed position and such individual shall then be entitled to cast a ballot. Any ballot cast by such an individual shall be segregated and not counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
[10]. Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
[11]. The 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.
[12]. 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, 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).
[13]. The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Caroline Rowan”
for the Board