Service Employees International Union, Local 204 Affiliated with the S.E.I.U., A.F. of L., C.I.O., C.L.C. v. Haliburton Highland Health Services Corporation
1320-00-R Service Employees International Union, Local 204 Affiliated with the S.E.I.U., A.F. of L., C.I.O., C.L.C., Applicant v. Haliburton Highland Health Services Corporation, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; August 9, 2000
1This is an application for certification. A representation vote is to be held on August 10, 2000.
2In its decision dated August 8, 2000 the Board ordered the parties to file submissions regarding whether the ballot box ought to be sealed, as requested by CUPE, following the representation vote. This decision deals with that issue.
3The employer consists of a number of hospitals and related service providers in Minden who were amalgamated. As a result of amalgamation, the employer has a number of collective agreements with a number of different unions. The employer also has some unorganized employees, some of whom are the subject of this application.
4On June 29, 2000 the employer filed an application under section 69 of the Act, in which it seeks to have its numerous bargaining units consolidated into two bargaining units and have a run-off representation vote to determine which union will represent the employees in those bargaining units. It alleges that there has been an intermingling of employees. No hearing dates have been set.
5On August 2, 2000 this application for certification was filed. As noted, the applicant seeks to represent a group of unorganized employees. CUPE asserts that the ballots for this application should be sealed until the sale of business application is determined, presumably because CUPE may end up with bargaining rights for the employees affected by this application.
6In our view, the ballot box ought not to be sealed following the representation vote. We agree with the applicant that the sale of business application ought not to interfere, under these circumstances, with the application for certification, and that the representation rights issues can be determined under section 69 of the Act if appropriate. A significant portion of the employees have indicated a desire to be represented by the SEIU (at least on paper) and that process ought not to be thwarted or delayed.
7Accordingly, the Board directs that the ballots cast in the representation vote be counted following the vote.
“Brian McLean”
for the Board