National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. The Corporation of the County of Grey Operating as Grey County Homes for the Aged: Grey Gables
0686-00-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) Applicant v. The Corporation of the County of Grey Operating as Grey County Homes for the Aged: Grey Gables, Markdale, Ontario, Responding Party v. Canadian Health Care Workers (CHCW), and Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenors.
0702-00-R Canadian Health Care Workers (CHCW), Applicant v. The Corporation of the County of Grey Operating as Grey County Homes for the Aged: Grey Owen Lodge (Grey Gables), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, and National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Intervenors.
BEFORE: Laura Trachuk, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF LAURA TRACHUK, VICE-CHAIR, AND BOARD MEMBER, G. MCMENEMY; June 9, 2000
Decision
These are displacement applications for certification.
The Board finds that the applicants are trade unions within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
3 . The employees are currently represented by the intervenor, Service Employees International Union, Local 220.
- Both of these applications are for certification of employees in the following bargaining unit:
all employees at The Corporation of the County of Grey in its home or homes for the aged in the Town of Durham regularly employed for not more than twenty-four (24) hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, registered and graduate nurses, office and clerical staff.
Board File No. 0686-00-R was filed on June 1, 2000 and Board File 0702-00-R was filed on June 2, 2000. Under section 111(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, the Board has the discretion to treat File No. 0702-00-R as if it were filed on the same day as File No. 0686-00-R and therefore to hold a representation vote with both applicants on the ballot. In the circumstances of this case where the second application was received before a vote was ordered with respect to the first application, and after reviewing the materials, the Board considers it appropriate to treat the applications as if they were received on the same day and to hold a single representation vote.
It appears to the Board on an examination of only the information provided in the applications and the information and membership evidence filed by the applicants (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 unions at the time the application was made.
The responding party dispute the applicants’ estimate of the number of employees in the bargaining unit. It gives notice under section 8.1 of the Act in both applications.
After comparing the membership evidence provided by the applicants in both applications as against the information provided by the responding party, the majority finds that the numerical difference between the parties is not significant in either application. The applicants have established sufficient membership support in the 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 at The Corporation of the County of Grey in its home or homes for the aged in the Town of Durham regularly employed for not more than twenty-four (24) hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, registered and graduate nurses, office and clerical staff.
The vote will be held on June 13, 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 June 1. 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on June 1, 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 Service Employees International Union, Local 220 or the Canadian Health Care Workers (CHCW) or the National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) in their employment relations with the responding party.
Service Employees International Union has referred to a decision and Order of the Superior Court of Justice (dated March 1, 2000) in respect of a motion for an injunction brought by it against certain individuals formerly associated with it, now associated with the National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada). The Service Employees International Union, Local 220 argues that the holding of a representation vote would be contrary to the Order and therefore submits that the application should be dismissed without a vote. Alternatively, the Service Employees International Union, Local 220 argues that no vote should be held until the Board conducts a hearing with respect to the matters raised by it. In the further alternative, the intervenor argues that if a vote is ordered, the ballot box should be sealed pending a hearing. The intervenor also alleges that the CAW has committed other unparticularized, unfair labour practices with respect to this application.
In its decision of March 17, 2000, a differently constituted panel of the Board ordered a representation vote despite SEIU’s request that the Board not conduct the vote on the basis of its court motion for an injunction (which now forms the basis for SEIU’s contempt motion). Moreover, the Board (again, differently constituted) dealt with similar SEIU arguments in its oral decisions dated April 6, 2000 and April 11, 2000 covering this matter and a number of other certification applications (subsequently reduced to writing). In those decisions, the Board found no support for SEIU’s position concerning the contempt motion or the CLC proceedings insofar as they impact upon proceedings under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”). The Board in those decisions refused to adjourn the proceedings, and ordered that the ballots cast in the representation vote be counted. In respect of the submissions made by SEIU in this matter, and for the same reasons already articulated by the other panels of the Board in the aforementioned decisions, the Board can find no valid reason not to hold a vote or to seal the ballots box. Furthermore, the Board does not consider it appropriate to delay holding the vote on the basis of the other allegations made by SEIU.
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.
“Laura Trachuk”
for the majority
7
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RUNDLE; June 9 2000
I dissent.
A plain reading of sections 8 and 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) requires the Board to seal the ballot box, when as in the instant matter, an employer has given notice that it disagrees with the trade union's estimate of the number of individuals in the unit described in the application for certification.
Subsection 8.1(4) requires the Board to seal the ballot box unless the trade union and the employee agree otherwise. Accordingly, I would have directed the ballot box to be sealed.
“J. A. Rundle”