Ontario Labour Relations Board
3539-99-R Maria Wadden, Antonio Maria de Carvalho-Costa, Applicants v. Service Employees International Union, Local 204 AFL-CIO, CLC, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 8, 2000
This is an application for termination of bargaining rights pursuant to the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act")
The parties agree that the collective agreement between the responding party and the employer Sanitary Maintenance Systems (SMS) commenced on May 1, 1997 and expired on December 31, 1999. However, the responding party (“the union”) submits that the application is untimely under section 67 of the Act because a conciliation officer was appointed by the Minister of Labour on December 2, 1999.
Subsection 67(2) of the Act states:
(2) Where notice has been given under section 59 and the Minister has appointed a conciliation officer or a mediator, no application for certification of a bargaining agent of any of the employees in the bargaining units as defined in the collective agreement and no application for a declaration that the trade union that was a party to the collective agreement no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit as defined in the agreement shall be made after the date when the agreement ceased to operate or the date when the Minister appointed a conciliation officer or a mediator, whichever is later, unless following the appointment of a conciliation officer or a mediator, if no collective agreement has been made,
(a) at least 12 months have elapsed from the date of the appointment of the conciliation officer or a mediator;
(b) a conciliation board or a mediator has been appointed and 30 days have elapsed after the report of the conciliation board or the mediator has been released by the Minister to the parties; or
(c) 30 days have elapsed after the Minister has informed the parties that he or she does not consider it desirable to appoint a conciliation board,
whichever is later.
In order to determine whether a representation vote should be held, the Board requires a reply from the applicants in respect of the timeliness issue raised by the union. Therefore, the Board directs the applicants to file with the Board (with a copy to the union) a reply within five days of the date of this decision, stating their position as to whether or not the application for termination is timely.
When it has received the applicants’ submissions, the Board will determine whether or not a representation vote shall be held, or otherwise how the matter will be processed.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board