Canadian Union of Public Employees v. G.A. Trottier Ltd. (Trottier Bus Lines)
0859-00-R Canadian Union of Public Employees, Applicant v. G.A. Trottier Ltd. (Trottier Bus Lines), Responding Party.
BEFORE: Stephen Raymond, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF STEPHEN RAYMOND, VICE-CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER H. PEACOCK; June 21, 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 as against the information provided by the responding party, the majority of the Board finds that the numerical difference between the parties is not significant. The applicant has established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit for the purposes of obtaining a representation vote and having that vote counted. In any event, the responding party agreed that the ballots cast in the representation vote should be counted.
6The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all bus drivers of G.A. Trottier Ltd. employed in the City of Thunder Bay and the Lakehead District School Division.
7The vote will be held on June 23, 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 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.
9Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
10The 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.
11Any 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).
12The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Stephen Raymond”
for the Board
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON; June 21, 2000
It would appear that if the employer agrees to count the ballots, having pleaded that section 8.1 applies, then there may be no bar if the union loses the vote. In the circumstances then, no vote should take place until the section 8.1 issues are dealt with at a hearing. If a vote is ordered, then at the least the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues are resolved.
“J. A. Ronson”