3644-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. South Huron Hospital, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3645-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Delhi Nursing Home, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3665-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Sunbeam Residential Development Centre, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3668-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Sunbeam Residential Development Centre, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3669-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Oxford Regional Nursing Home, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3670-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Clinton Public Hospital, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 210, Intervenor.
3671-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Goldenddawn Nursing Home, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3678-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Malcolm Place Retirement Home, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 210, Intervenor.
3689-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Trinity Village Care Centre Full Time, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3690-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Trinity Village Care Centre Part Time, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3693-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre – St. Joseph’s Hospital, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3694-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre – St. Joseph’s Hospital, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3696-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. St. Joseph’s Health Centre (Mount Hope Centre for Long Term Care) (Part-time Employees), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3714-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Grand River Hospital, 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, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3727-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. St. Mary’s Hospital Part Time, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3728-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. St. Mary’s Hospital Full Time Service Employees, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3729-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Meadow Park Incorporated (Meadow Park Retirement Home), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3730-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Meadow Park Incorporated (Meadow Park Retirement Home), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3731-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Chelsey Park Retirement Community Nursing Home, A Division of Diversicare VI Limited Partnership Inc., Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3732-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Chelsey Park Retirement Community Nursing Home, A Division of Diversicare VI Limited Partnership Inc., Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3733-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Babcock Nursing and Rest Homes Ltd., Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3735-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Ontario Jockey Club, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 528, Intervenor.
3747-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Middlesex Terrace (Part-time), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3749-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital
(Part-time), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3750-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital (Full time), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3752-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Country Terrace Nursing Home (Part-Time), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3753-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Craigwiel Gardens c.o.b. as Craigholme Nursing Home (Part-time), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3754-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Craigwiel Gardens c.o.b. as Craigholme Nursing Home, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3755-98-G International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local 50, Applicant v. Otis Canada, Inc., Responding Party.
3775-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Parkway House, Ottawa & District, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 183, Intervenor.
3776-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Quinte Vocational Support Services, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 183, Intervenor.
3794-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Community Care Access Centre of the District of Thunder Bay, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 268, Intervenor.
3795-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. OPTIONS, Northwest, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 268, Intervenor.
3827-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Hanover and District Hospital Part-Time Service Employees, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3829-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Hanover and District Hospital Full-Time Service Employees, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3848-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Grand River Hospital Part Time Office & Clerical Employees, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3849-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Grand River Hospital Part Time Service Employees, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3866-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Cedarwood Village (Part-time Registered Nurses), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
3871-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Brouillette Manor 1230839 Ontario Limited, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 210, Intervenor.
3903-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Merrymount Children’s Centre (Full-time), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Laura Trachuk, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 7, 2000
At the hearing of these matters on April 6, 2000 the Board issued the following oral ruling:
The Board has carefully considered the submissions of the parties.
The Board has exclusive jurisdiction with respect to the certification of trade unions as representatives of employees for purposes of collective bargaining. In these applications the Board has determined, according to the requirements of its governing statute the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) that 40% of the employees in the bargaining units appear to be members of the CAW. Accordingly, the Board directed that representation votes be held. Employees were asked to choose between the SEIU and the CAW. The next step in this process, according to the Act, would be to count those ballots.
The SEIU asks that we not proceed further with these applications because it has a contempt motion before the Court alleging that there was impropriety in the access the CAW had to the employees in its organizing campaign. However, the Act, and the Board, are concerned in these cases with employees’ wishes to be represented by a trade union of their choice during the period in which it is open to them to change their representation. There is no suggestion that the votes in those boxes do not represent the employees’ wishes.
The Board therefore considers it appropriate to proceed with these applications which in most cases means counting the ballots. We believe that each of these files has a regional certification meeting date and a hearing date assigned to it. In those cases where there are no other outstanding issues, the parties should expect to count the ballots at the meetings. If the Board cannot accommodate that it will advise the parties of a different date. In files where there are other outstanding issues, an officer will try to resolve them as they do in the normal course. If the outstanding issues are not resolved, those files will proceed to hearing on the dates scheduled.
The Board is assuming that the list of applications provided by Mr. Wray is correct. It will review the list and advise the parties if there are discrepancies.
With respect to the argument that Mr. Wray wishes to make about the CLC proceedings, we are prepared to hear that argument on Tuesday morning April 11 at 9:30 a.m. Any party who wishes to respond to that argument should also attend. Of course, if Mr. Wray is successful in persuading the Board that it should adjourn this matter until the conclusion of the CLC process, the Board will issue a decision to that effect.
“Laura Trachuk”
for the Board