Canadian Union of Public Employees v. Iron Range Bus Lines Inc.
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; June 26, 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 (the “Act”).
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 responding party disputes the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the applicant's proposed bargaining unit. Furthermore, the responding party proposes a different bargaining unit than that proposed by the applicant and it contends that the applicant's bargaining unit could not be appropriate. It gives notice under section 8.1 of the Act.
5The Board finds that the bargaining unit described in the application could be appropriate. After comparing the membership evidence provided by the applicant against the information provided by the responding party, the Board cannot be absolutely certain that the percentage of the individuals who appear to be members of the trade union is 40 per cent or more in the bargaining unit proposed by the applicant.
6An 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.
7A review of the Board’s records failed to produce any previous Board finding of trade union status of the intervenor within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Act. Nor did it produce a copy of a certificate issued to the intervenor. It is not clear whether or not the document filed by the responding party is a collective agreement, and if it is, whether it is in operation, thereby rendering the application untimely as alleged by the intervenor.
8In light of the matters raised in paragraphs 5 and 6 above, the Board directs that the ballot box from the representation vote be sealed. The ballots will not be counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
9The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all bus drivers, tour drivers and tour guides of Iron Range Bus Lines Inc. employed in Thunder Bay and servicing the Thunder Bay Area School Boards.
10The vote will be held on June 28, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
11All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on June 16, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on June 16, 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.
12There is a dispute between the parties as to whether or not the positions of “tour driver” and “tour guide” 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.
13Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
14The intervenor raised allegations that the membership evidence in this matter was obtained improperly. If it is determined by the panel of the Board assigned to hear this matter that the intervenor has bargaining rights and is party to a collective agreement with the responding party, the intervenor’s allegations concerning the membership evidence may be dealt with
15The 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.
16Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue remaining in dispute which relates to the application for certification, 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).
17The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board