0023-98-R Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183, Applicant v. B. G. Schickedanz Homes Inc. and Deerfield-Schickedanz and Kansu Homes Limited and My Building Corporation, Responding Party.
2986-99-U My Building Corporation, Deerfield-Schickedanz and Kansun Homes Limited and B.G. Schickedanz Homes Inc., Applicant v. Labourers’ International Union of North America Local 183, Responding Party.
BEFORE: John Morgan Lewis, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; January 27, 2000
Board File No. 2896-99-U is an unfair labour practice complaint under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) which was filed on January 10, 2000. This application relates in part to Board File No. 0023-99-R which is an application for certification in the construction industry and in which the Board, in its decision dated November 24, 1999 found the applicant (a single employer pursuant to section 1(4) of the Act) to have violated the Act and pursuant to section 11, ordered a second representation vote. By decision dated December 10, 1999 the Board directed the second representation vote to be conducted on December 20, 1999.
The applicant in this application brought a motion in Divisional Court seeking to stay the Board’s decision dated November 24, 1999 and to prohibit the Board from conducting a representation vote on December 20, 1999. Madame Justice MacFarland heard and dismissed the applicant’s motion on December 17, 1999 (My Building Corporation, Deerfield-Schickedanz and Kansun Homes Limited and B.G. Schickedanz Homes Inc. and Labourers’ International Union of North America, Local 183 and Ontario Labour Relations Board, Court File No. 859/99). Accordingly, the second representation vote was conducted on December 20, 1999. The responding party won the vote 6-1, with one ballot segregated and not counted.
In Board File No. 2896-99-U, the applicant is alleging that there were a number of irregularities with respect to the second representation vote on December 20, 1999. These allegations include the failure to properly notify all eligible employees of the second representation vote, acts of intimidation and coercion by representatives of the responding party and the purchase of breakfast immediately prior to the representation vote for eligible employees by representatives of the responding party. By way of relief, the applicant is seeking, inter alia, a third representation vote.
The responding party filed its response on January 10, 1999. In its reply, the responding party asserts that the applicant has failed to make out a case for the orders requested and asks the Board to dismiss the application pursuant to Rule 46 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure. The responding party further requests that the Board proceed with the application for certification (Board File No. 0023-99-U) and issue a certificate forthwith.
Upon reviewing the materials filed with the Board, the Registrar is directed to list these matters for one day of hearing to be scheduled at my earliest availability. At hearing the Board will hear submissions from the parties with respect to the responding party’s preliminary motion that the applicant has failed to make out a case for the orders requested in its application.
I am seized.
“John Morgan Lewis”
for the Board