3344-99-R Christian Labour Association of Canada, Applicant v. St. Andrew’s Residence, Responding Party v. Service Employees’ Union, Local 210, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice‑Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 18, 2000
This is a displacement application for certification.
The employees are currently represented by Service Employees’ Union, Local 210.
The applicant seeks a representation vote of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of St. Andrew’s Residence in the municipality of Chatham-Kent regularly employed for not more than 24 hours per week, and students employed during the school vacation period, save and except registered and graduate nurses, supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor, office staff and paramedical employees.
- It appears to the Board on an examination of the evidence before it that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the bargaining unit proposed in the application for certification were members of the union at the time the application was made.
5 The employer gives notice under section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act"), but does not provide the number of employees that it says are in the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit. However, the employer agrees that the ballots cast should be counted.
The applicant asserts that the collective agreement expires on March 31, 2000.
Service Employees’ Union, Local 210 filed an intervention on February 18, 2000. Its intervention, although filed one day late, raises an issue as to whether this application is timely. The intervenor states that the Superior Court of Justice recently issued a decision quashing the award of an interest board of arbitration pertaining to the collective agreement between St. Andrew’s Residence and the intervenor. The Court remitted the interest arbitration to a new board of arbitration.
The intervenor states that the parties to the collective agreement are awaiting a hearing before the new board of arbitration. It asserts that the displacement application is “untimely on its face” and, further, that if a vote were ordered by the Board, such vote would be contrary to the decision of the Superior Court of Justice in Court File No. 772-98.
In view of the foregoing, the Board needs further submissions before it decides whether or not to order a representation vote. The applicant and responding party are directed to provide the Board with detailed submissions as to whether or not this application is timely and as to the legal effect of the aforementioned decision of the Superior Court of Justice in Court File No. 772-98. The submissions shall be filed with the Board (and provided to the other parties) by no later than 5:00 p.m. February 22, 2000. The intervenor shall have until February 23, 2000 to reply to any submissions filed by the other parties. Upon receipt of the submissions within the prescribed time, the Board will consider whether or not to order a vote or otherwise how to proceed.
This panel of the Board is not seized with this matter.
“Anthony Brown”
for the Board