Ontario Labour Relations Board
0040-00-R David Erickson, Applicant v. U.A.W. Local 2381, Responding Party v. Speedy Auto Glass Limited c.o.b. as Speedy Auto and Window Glass, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; April 12, 2000
1The applicant has applied to the Board under section 63 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”) for a declaration that the responding party no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit for whom it is the bargaining agent.
2The application appears to be timely.
3However, the petition filed with the application, which purports to demonstrate that 40% or more of employees in the bargaining unit no longer wish to be represented by the responding party is deficient. The petition is a list of names and signatures. There is no heading. Following the list, there is a statement “We feel we are ill represented, and find the amount of union dues is a waste of money”.
4We are not satisfied that the employees who signed the “petition” were aware of what they were signing, as at the time of signing, the piece of paper must have been blank. The statement of dissatisfaction with the union must have been written on the paper after the employees signed the paper. Moreover, the statement that does appear on the list of employee names and their signatures, while indicating dissatisfaction, is not a clear statement of a desire that the responding party’s bargaining rights be terminated. Under these circumstances, it does not appear to the Board that 40% or more employees in the bargaining unit desire to terminate the union’s bargaining rights.
5Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board