National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Aramark Canada Limited
1522-00-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Aramark Canada Limited (formerly Versa Services Limited) (Full Time Unit), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 268, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF ANTHONY BROWN, VICE-CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBER R. R. MONTAGUE; August 28, 2000
This is a displacement application for certification.
The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
The employees are currently represented by the intervenor.
It 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.
The 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 from 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 but has agreed that the ballots cast should be counted.
After comparing the membership evidence provided by the applicant as against the information provided by the responding party, 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.
The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of Aramark Canada Limited (formerly Versa Services Limited) at Lakehead University in the City of Thunder Bay (including lead hands and the position of storeskeeper), save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, office and clerical staff, persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four (24) hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period.
The vote will be held on August 30, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on August 23, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on August 23, 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.
Voters 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.
The intervenor has filed submissions that the application be dismissed because of an alleged breach of an Order of the Superior Court of Justice and because of a breach of the Constitution of the Canadian Labour Congress. The Board has considered similar submissions in previous decisions and did not agree with the intervenor’s position. The Board in this instance having considered the submissions of the intervenor is not prepared to accede to the request that a vote not be held.
The intervenor further submits that the application ought to be dismissed because the applicant did not adhere to the Board’s Rules of Procedure. The Board has considered the submissions and at best finds the alleged breach of a minor technical nature. In the circumstances, the Board is not prepared to dismiss the application based on these submissions.
The responding party and intervenor submit that the date of the vote should be delayed until after the commencement of the school year when the period of seasonal lay-off has ended. The applicant opposes any such delay. Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Board (Mr. Ronson dissenting), is satisfied that there is insufficient reason to delay the vote.
The 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.
Any 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).
The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Anthony Brown”
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON; August 28, 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 the hearing. If a vote is ordered, then at the least the ballot box should be sealed until the section 8.1 issues are resolved.
An examination of the membership evidence submitted by the union discloses that the signatures of the persons in the part-time unit were all obtained in March and April of this year. The application was filed some four months after the membership evidence was obtained. The open period under the contract expires September 30, 2000. In these circumstances if a vote is ordered, I would order that it not take place until the school year has begun. The request of the employer and the intervenor has merit. The vote should take place during the second week of September.
“J. A. Ronson”