3411-99-R Local Union 636 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Applicant v. The Town of Clinton, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 24, 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.
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 employees of the Town of Clinton, save and except Administrator/Clerk Treasurer, Operations Manager, employees above the rank of Operations Manager, students employed during the school vacation period and those employees already covered by an existing Collective Agreement.
5The vote will be held on February 29, 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 February 22, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on February 22, 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.
7There is a dispute between the parties as to whether or not part-time employees, office and clerical employees and the position of deputy clerk/treasurer should be included in the bargaining unit. If any individual holding such a position wishes to cast a ballot, the 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.
8The employer has given the Board notice under section 8.1 of the Act that it disagrees with the applicant’s estimate of the number of employees in the bargaining unit. However, for the purposes of this decision only, the majority find that the bargaining unit applied for could be an appropriate bargaining unit and that forty percent or more employees in that unit appear to be members of the applicant. Accordingly, the ballot box shall not be sealed following the representation vote.
9The Board notes the employer’s position that the vote should be deferred until January 1, 2001. The employer is entitled to make that argument at the hearing of this matter; however, the argument does not cause us to defer the representation vote or order that the ballot box be sealed.
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.
"Brian McLean"
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER JUDITH RUNDLE; February 24, 2000
Having regard to the difference between the applicant's and the respondent's estimates of the number of employees in the applicant's proposed bargaining unit, I would have ordered a vote but sealed the ballot box pending a determination of the actual number of employees in the proposed unit, to ensure compliance with the forty percent threshold as contemplated by the Statute.
"Judith Rundle"