Ontario Labour Relations Board
3569-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Provincial Nursing Home Ltd., Partnership cob as Seaforth Manor Nursing Home, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 210, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 10, 2000
1This is a displacement 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”).
3The employees are currently represented by the intervenor.
4It appears to the Board on an examination of the evidence before it that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the bargaining unit proposed in the application for certification were members of the applicant at the time the application was made.
5The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of Provincial Nursing Home Limited Partnership (cob as Seaforth Manor Nursing Home) in the Town of Seaforth, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor and registered nurses.
6The vote will be held on March 14, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
7All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on March 7, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on March 7, 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.
8Voters will be asked to indicate whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor in their employment relations with the responding party.
9The intervenor has filed a number of submissions in respect of unfair labour practices that are alleged to have occurred in respect of this application. It has filed a copy of a decision and Order of the Superior Court of Justice (dated March 1, 2000) in respect of a motion for an injunction brought by the intervenor against certain individuals. The intervenor argues that the holding of a representation vote would be contrary to the Order and therefore submits that the application should be dismissed without a vote Alternatively, the intervenor argues that no vote should be held until the Board conducts a hearing with respect to the matters raised by it. In the further alternative, the intervenor argues that if a vote is ordered, the ballot box should be sealed pending a hearing.
10It is not entirely clear how, on its face, the Order of the Superior Court of Justice may affect the right of the applicant to have a representation vote and to have the ballots cast in that vote counted. However, in the Board’s view, the parties should have a proper opportunity to be heard on the issue before any decision is made as to whether the ballots should be counted. Therefore, the Board directs that the ballot box shall be sealed. The ballots cast in the representation vote will not be counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
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, 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.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board