0860-00-R Canadian Union of Public Employees, Applicant v. Iron Range Bus Lines Inc., Responding Party v. Professional School Bus Association, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; November 22, 2000
The Board is in receipt of correspondence dated September 15, 2000 (received by the Board on September 25, 2000) from an individual (“the employee”) describing herself as a school bus driver with the responding party and a member of the intervenor.
The correspondence follows a decision of the Board dated July 12, 2000 which dismissed an application for certification, and a decision of June 26, 2000 which directed the representation vote. The employee appears to take issue with paragraph 6 of the June 26 decision, which states:
An intervention was filed by the Professional School Bus Drivers Association which claims trade union status, as well as bargaining rights for employees covered by the application. The intervenor claims to be party to a collective agreement effective from January 1, 2000 and ending on December 31, 2000. The intervenor did not file a copy of the collective agreement. The responding party, which claims that the intervenor was certified to represent employees covered by the application on December 19, 1990, filed a document which it claims is the collective agreement between it and the intervenor. The document does not contain a recognition clause, nor does it indicate the duration over which it operates.
The employee claims that the above-noted paragraph confers trade union status on the intervenor and establishes the existence of a collective agreement. The employee goes on to complain that the ballot used in the representation vote should have contained, in addition to the choices between the intervenor and the applicant, a non-union option.
To the extent the employee’s correspondence constitutes a request for reconsideration, it is well beyond the time limits established for the filing of such a request: Rule 96 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure establish that no request for reconsideration will be considered if it is filed not later than 20 days from the date of the Board’s decision, unless the Board grants permission for the late filing. In this case, the employee admits that she simply waited to return to work in the Fall before contacting the Board. In the circumstances there are no good reasons for considering, and the Board declines to consider, the request for reconsideration, if in fact that is the nature of the employee’s correspondence of September 15, 2000.
Having said that, some elucidation of the Board’s ruling of June 26, 2000 may be helpful. The Board did not make a finding that the intervenor had trade union status; in fact it noted that the Board’s records contain no indication that the Board had previously found the intervenor to have trade union status. Paragraph 6 of the June 26 decision simply noted that the intervenor claimed such status, claimed to have the right to bargain on behalf of the employees who were the subject of the application, and claimed to be party to a collective agreement with the responding party. The Board made no findings of fact with respect to any of those claims, but did order the ballot box sealed in the event that the intervenor was able to establish its allegations subsequently. As it turned out, the parties agreed to count the ballots cast in the representation vote, and the result of that count was that the application for certification failed. It was unnecessary, therefore, to hold a hearing to determine the intervenor’s claims.
The ballot did not contain a non-union option. The Board’s practice in certification applications is to provide employees a choice between being represented or not by the applicant in their employment relations with their employer. In the instant case, because of the intervention and the claims of the intervenor, the employees were asked to choose between the applicant and the intervenor as if the application for certification was seeking to displace the intervenor. That was the proper question to be put to the employees. A non-union option on the ballot would have presumed that the employees were not represented by a trade union, a presumption challenged by the intervention.
The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision in a location or locations in the workplace where it is likely to come to the attention of employees who were the subject of the application for certification. Those copies are to remain posted for a period of 30 days.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board