Ontario Labour Relations Board
1683-00-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation & General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. LaChaumiere Retirement Residence, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 210, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Caroline Rowan, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 12, 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 responding party, although duly served with the application material on September 7, 2000, according to the certificate of delivery filed by the applicant, failed to file its response with the Board within the time stipulated by Rule 69 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.
4The employees are currently represented by the intervenor.
5It 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.
6The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of LaChaumiere Retirement Residence, in the town of Lakeshore, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, registered and graduate nurses, office and clerical staff.
7The vote will be held on September 14, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
8All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on September 7, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on September 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.
9There is a dispute between the parties concerning the appropriate geographic description of the bargaining unit. The applicant refers to "the town of Lakeshore", whereas the intervenor refers to "Puce, Ontario". If any individual is in dispute as a result of this difference, that 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.
10Voters 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.
11The intervenor has made a number of submissions in respect of unfair labour practices that are alleged to have occurred in respect of this application. It refers to a decision and Order of the Superior Court of Justice, in respect of a motion for injunctions brought by the intervenor against certain individuals. It also refers to certain proceedings pertaining to the applicant and intervenor before the Canadian Labour Congress. The intervenor asserts that no representation vote should be held, or, in the alternative, that the Board ought not to hold a vote until a decision is rendered with respect to these matters or, in the further alternative, that the ballot box should be sealed pending a hearing into the matters raised.
12The Board (differently constituted) has considered similar objections from the intervenor with respect to a number of other displacement applications by the applicant. In those applications, the ballot box had been sealed pending a hearing. At the hearing held April 6, 2000, the Board ruled that the ballots cast should be counted. At a subsequent hearing on April 11, 2000, the Board declined to adjourn its proceedings pending conclusion of matters before the Canadian Labour Congress.
13The Board is not persuaded that there is a reason not to hold a vote, to delay the vote, or to seal the ballot box in the instant application.
14The 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.
15Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue remaining in dispute which relates to the application for certification, other than status disputes, 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).
16The matter is referred to the Registrar.
"Caroline Rowan"
for the Board