3714-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Grand River Hospital Corporation, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3715-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Grand River Hospital Corporation, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor..
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 12, 2000
This is a request by the intervenor in the above-referenced Board Files for reconsideration of the Board’s May 2, 2000 decision resulting in the issue of certificates to the applicant pursuant to its two displacement applications for certification.
The intervenor contends that in refusing to hold a hearing into the issues raised by the intervenor concerning voting irregularities and the applicant’s alleged conduct during the day of the representation vote, the Board violated the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness, and acted in excess of its jurisdiction.
The heart of the intervenor’s request for reconsideration appears to lie in paragraph 6 of the May 2, 2000 decision. That paragraph reads as follows:
Assuming, without deciding, that SEIU’s allegations concerning the freedom by which the applicant’s representatives were able to move about the responding party’s premises and speak to employees are true, the Board is not convinced that the combination of these allegations together with the apparent voting errors outlined above in any way influenced the ultimate outcome of the representation votes. The apparent voting irregularities are regrettable, and in other circumstances might have warranted a hearing. However, in the instant applications, the results of the representation votes are overwhelmingly in favour of the applicant. There is no suggestion that voters were not afforded an opportunity to cast their ballots in privacy. There are no particulars alleged of intimidation or coercion exercised against the voters. The Board is of the view that, in all the circumstances, the true wishes of the employees have been expressed, even if everything alleged by SEIU in respect of the representation votes is true.
The intervenor appears to be particularly troubled by the sentence in paragraph 6 that states: “The apparent voting irregularities are regrettable, and in other circumstances might have warranted a hearing”. The intervenor states that that sentence implies the Board’s acknowledgement of serious and contentious issues which, the intervenor argues, should have been afforded a hearing for resolution.
The problem with the intervenor’s focus on the quoted sentence is that it is taken out of context from the remainder of the paragraph in which it appears. Indeed, in quoting paragraph 6 of the May 2, 2000 decision, the intervenor chose not to refer to or quote the three sentences which follow the impugned sentence. Those three sentences are critical to an understanding of what the Board meant by “other circumstances” which might have warranted a hearing of the issues raised by the intervenor. In other words, had there been circumstances such as a smaller margin of victory in the representation votes, allegations of invasion of privacy in the voting process, and/or allegations of intimidation or coercion exercised against those individuals who cast ballots in the representation votes, then a hearing might have been scheduled. Clearly, the Board was expressing the view that the allegations raised by the intervenor, in and of themselves, were not sufficiently serious to warrant a hearing. Standing by themselves, the intervenor’s allegations were not, on any objective basis, compelling enough to suggest that the representation vote results were not reflective of the wishes of the employees who cast ballots.
As the intervenor acknowledged, the Board has a discretion in section 8(8) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 to hold a hearing in a certification application. It does so when it considers it necessary in order to dispose of the application. In the instant case, it was apparent to the Board that there were no remaining allegations which, even if true, would change the result of these applications. Accordingly, there was no need for a hearing.
Having carefully considered the intervenor’s submissions, and for the reasons set out above, the Board declines to reconsider its decision of May 2, 2000.
The request for reconsideration is dismissed.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board