Ontario Labour Relations Board
1662-00-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Campbell Monument Co. Ltd., Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 183, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Caroline Rowan, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and
R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; September 11, 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 employees are currently represented by the intervenor.
4It 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.
5Although the responding party does not dispute the applicant’s estimate of the number of employees in the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit, it gives notice under section 8.1 of the Act. Furthermore, the responding party proposes a different bargaining unit from that proposed by the applicant and it contends that the applicant’s bargaining unit could not be appropriate.
6The Board finds that the bargaining unit described in the application could be appropriate. The Board also finds that the numerical difference between the parties is not significant since the employer agrees with the union’s estimate of the number of individuals in the unit set out in the application for certification. In any event, the employer agrees that the ballots cast in the representation vote should be counted.
7The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of Campbell Monument Co. Ltd., in the City of Quinte West, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, office, sales, clerical staff.
8The vote will be held on September 13, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
9All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on September 6, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on September 6, 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.
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.
11There is a dispute between the parties concerning the appropriate geographic description of the bargaining unit. The applicant and the intervenor refer to “the City of Quinte West”, whereas the responding party refers to “the City of Belleville”. Although the Board notes that the recognition clause in the collective agreement refers to “the City of Quinte West”, the responding party explains that it does not employ any workers in Quinte West. If any individual is in dispute as a result of this difference between the parties concerning the appropriate geographic description of the bargaining unit, 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.
12The 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 out 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.
13The 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.
14The 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.
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, 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.
“Caroline Rowan”
for the Board