Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Corporation of the County of Haliburton, 2000 CanLII 10582

Ontario Public Service Employees Union v. The Corporation of the County of Haliburton

2266-00-R Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Applicant v. The Corporation of the County of Haliburton, Responding Party v. Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1960, Intervenor.

BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and D. A. Patterson

DECISION OF BRAM HERLICH, VICE-CHAIR, AND BOARD MEMBER D. A. PATTERSON; November 6, 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 Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:

all paramedic employees of The Corporation of the County of Haliburton employed in the Haliburton County emergency medical services, save and except managers and persons above the rank of manager.

5The vote will be held on November 8, 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 November 1, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on November 1, 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.

7Both the responding party employer and the intervenor assert that this application is untimely insofar as the affected employees are represented by the intervenor and are subject to the terms of a current collective agreement. Indeed, they both assert that although the employer has not previously employed paramedic employees, the scope of the pre-existing bargaining rights has always been wide enough to include such employees.

8The applicant disputes those assertions and claims that whatever efforts have been recently made by the employer and the intervenor to purportedly “formalize” the representation of paramedic employees by the intervenor are improper and ineffective to bar the instant application.

9In view of that dispute (one which the Board may be unable to resolve on the basis of written submissions) and in view of the section 8.1 notice filed by the responding party employer, the ballot box will be sealed and the ballots will not be counted except by agreement of the parties or by further order of the Board.

10In view of the positions adopted by the parties, the Board sees no utility in a two-way ballot. It is not clear to the Board that any of the positions adopted by any of the parties would result in or necessitate the taking of such a vote. Accordingly, and subject to the previous paragraph, 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.

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.

“Bram Herlich”

for the majority

DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON; November 6, 2000

Prior to directing any vote in this matter, I would have listed it for hearing to determine whether the application is timely and properly before the Board.