Ontario Labour Relations Board
0775-00-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Corporation of the County of Grey, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
0776-00-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Corporation of the County of Grey, Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; July 5, 2000
1The Board is in receipt of representations from all the parties following the taking of the representation votes pursuant to the (differently constituted) Board’s decision of June 13, 2000. The representations of the applicant and the responding party, dated June 13 and 14, 2000 respectively, regarding the name of the responding party and the descriptions of the bargaining units, appear to have been fully resolved as indicated in the Certification Worksheet of June 15, 2000, completed by a Labour Relations Officer and signed by representatives of all three parties in these matters.
2In its representations dated June 22, 2000 the intervenor (“SEIU”) takes the position that the Board should postpone its decision in this matter until the latter of two events, namely the disposition of its contempt motion which is currently before the Superior Court, or the final disposition of proceedings under the constitution of the Canadian Labour Congress (“the CLC”) in which it was found that the applicant had acted contrary to the CLC constitution in making displacement applications covering workplaces in which the intervenor held bargaining rights, including this one. SEIU contends that the issuing of a certificate at this time would potentially lead to labour relations uncertainty and chaos in the event the position of the SEIU prevails in either the court or CLC proceeding.
3The applicant opposes the postponement of the Board’s decision in this matter. The responding party takes no position on the issue of postponement.
4In its decision of June 13, 2000, a differently constituted panel of the Board ordered the representation vote in this matter, 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 written decisions dated April 7, 2000 and April 18, 2000 covering this matter and a number of other certification applications. 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 post-representation vote 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 to delay the final determination of this matter. The employees have unequivocally indicated their wishes to be represented by the applicant. Section 10 of the Act requires that where more than 50 percent of the ballots cast in the representation vote are cast in favour of the applicant, the Board shall certify the applicant. There does not appear to be any Board discretion to postpone the issue of a certificate. However, even if there were such a discretion, postponement would leave the employees in at least as uncertain a labour relations position as that alleged by SEIU as a result of the issue of a certificate that continues to be the subject of ongoing litigation in other fora. The Board declines to postpone issuing a decision, or to conduct a further hearing to deal with arguments that have been previously considered and rejected by the Board.
5Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board further finds that:
all employees of the Corporation of the County of Grey in its home or homes for the aged in the Town of Durham, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, registered and graduate nurses, office and clerical staff, persons regularly employed for not more than twenty-four (24) hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period,
constitute a unit of employees of the responding party appropriate for collective bargaining in Board File No. 0775-00-R.
6Having further regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board further finds that:
all employees of 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 and office and clerical staff,
constitute a unit of employees of the responding party appropriate for collective bargaining in Board File No. 0776-00-R.
7On the taking of the representation votes directed by the Board, more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining units were cast in favour of the applicant.
8Certificates will issue to the applicant.
9The Registrar will destroy the ballots cast in the representation votes taken in these matters following the expiration of 30 days from the date of this decision unless a statement requesting that the ballots should not be destroyed is received by the Board from one of the parties before the expiration of such 30 day period.
10Meeting and hearing dates set previously are hereby cancelled.
11The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision immediately, adjacent to all copies of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" posted previously. These copies must remain posted for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this decision.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board