Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183 v. Metal Tech Systems Inc.
3703-99-R Universal Workers Union, L.I.U.N.A. Local 183, Applicant v. Metal Tech Systems Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Inge M. Stamp, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 21, 2000
1The Board in its decision of March 17, 2000 directed a representation vote be taken of the responding party’s employees at work in the bargaining unit on the application date.
2The vote was scheduled for Tuesday, March 21, 2000. The bargaining unit is described in terms of all carpenters and construction labourers in Board Areas 8 and 26 excluding ICI. The applicant stated that to its knowledge the only unrepresented trades on the application date were carpenters and labourers engaged in the performance of framing work. On Friday March 17, 2000 the Drywall Acoustic Lathing and Insulation Local 675 (“Local 675”) requested copies of the application certification and indicated its intention to intervene.
3Local 675 asserts it has a collective agreement with the responding party. A copy of the collective agreement was provided to the Board. The collective agreement between Local 675 and the responding party was signed November 4, 1997 with an expiry date of April 30, 2000. The application for certification was made on March 13, 2000 and would be a timely displacement application.
4The responding party in its response to the application for certification indicated that it was not bound to any collective agreement covering any of the employees in the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit. The responding party further stated in its response to paragraph 9 (a) asking if there was any trade union that may claim to represent any affected employees, that it was “N/A”. The applicant similarly indicated in paragraph 11 of its application that any trade union known to the applicant which claims to represent any affected employees was “N/A”.
5The applicant in its letter of March 20, 2000 advised the Board that it served Local 675’s counsel with the certification application. A certificate of delivery indicates the documents were delivered by facsimile transmission on March 20, 2000 at l:10 p.m.
6In the circumstances the Board cancelled the representation vote on March 21, 2000. The Board’s normal process for filing interventions will commence from the time Local 675 was served with the documents by the applicant.
7The applicant raised a number of issues in its letter to the Board dated March 20, 2000. The applicant takes issue with the validity of the collective agreement. However the applicant also requests to amend the bargaining unit description to mirror that of the collective agreement and asks for two votes.
8Local 675 is directed to file its submissions with respect to the issues raised by the applicant in its March 20, 2000 letter together with the intervention.
“Inge M. Stamp”
for the Board