Ontario Labour Relations Board
Between:
Service Employees’ International Union, Local 204, Applicant v. Niagara Health System; Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1531; Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1532; Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1742; Canadian Union of Operating Engineers & General Workers; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 722, Responding Parties v. Ontario Public Service Employees Union; Ontario Nurses’ Association, Intervenors.
And Between:
Niagara Health System, Applicant v. Service Employees International Union, Local 204; Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 7100; Ontario Public Service Employees Union; Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 214; Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 215; Canadian Union of Operating Engineers and General Workers, Local 101; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 772, Responding Parties v. Ontario Nurses’ Association, Intervenor.
Before: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair.
Decision of the Board: August 14, 2000
Decision
1These are applications under the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997 (the "Act").
2The Board is in receipt of letters dated August 8, 2000 from several employees identifying themselves by the classification of Addiction Counsellor, Addiction Counsellor 2, or Intake Worker/Addiction Counsellor. These employees claim to be "non-union". Their letters appear to be requests for reconsideration of the Board decision of July 12, 2000 in respect of the direction that the representation votes be held on August 23, 2000, having regard to Minutes of Settlement executed by some but not all of the parties. In this regard, one of the employees asked that if the date of August 23, 2000 could not be changed, he be permitted to vote "by proxy", as he will be on vacation at that time. The letters also appear to be requests for reconsideration of the Board decision of August 1, 2000 which, among other things, determined the voting constituencies, also having regard to the same Minutes of Settlement.
3It is not obvious that the employees have standing to request reconsideration of the above-noted decisions, although the August 1, 2000 decision did invite submissions concerning issues remaining in dispute or in connection with the representation votes. Having said that, this decision addresses the concerns raised by the employees.
4The employees affected by these applications have been aware since the Board’s July 12, 2000 decision that the vote would be held on August 23, 2000. The voting constituencies were determined on August 1, 2000, leaving the employees more than three weeks to consider their voting options. Employees in a certification application under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 typically have only five days to consider their voting options from the date the Board issues a decision to order a representation vote to determine whether the employees wish to be represented by a trade union. In this circumstances, the Board confirms the August 23, 2000 representation votes.
5The Act does not contain a process for proxy voting. It is not entirely clear what the employee who requested that option was seeking, but in any event, for every voting constituency, only one ballot can be cast by an individual wishing to participate in that voting constituency’s representation vote. All persons wishing to cast ballots must be in attendance at the representation vote on the date set by the Board.
6With respect to the other component of the employee’s concern, i.e. what the employees refer to as "the decision to divide the New Port Centre staff into two different bargaining units", the Board is unable to determine with certainty what the employees are referring to. Presumably it has something to do with a belief that Addiction Counsellors and Addiction Counsellors 2 (I could find no reference to the latter classification in the parties Minutes of Settlement, referred to above) may end up in different bargaining units depending on the outcome of the various representation votes ordered by the Board. It is not clear to the Board how that result might obtain based upon the Board’s decision of August 1, 2000, or a reading of the Minutes of Settlement upon which the voting constituencies were determined. For these reasons, the Board’s August 1, 2000 determination of the voting constituencies is hereby confirmed.
"Patrick Kelly"
for the Board