Ontario Labour Relations Board
Canadian Union of Public Employees, Applicant v. Guelph Wellington Association for Community Living, Responding Party.
BEFORE: David A. McKee, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF VICE-CHAIR DAVID A. McKEE AND BOARD MEMBER D. A. PATTERSON; March 20, 2000
1On March 17, 2000 the Board issued a decision ordering a vote in this matter. In that decision the Board noted that the responding party, although duly served by the applicant and the Board with various documents, had failed to file a response. This was in fact incorrect. The responding party had filed a response in a timely fashion and it was in the Board’s hands (though not in the file) when the decision was issued by the panel. This decision deals with the issues raised by the response.
2First, the responding party asks that the Board review the membership evidence filed to ensure that no membership application is greater than one year old. None is. The earliest date on any of the cards is in September of 1999.
3The employer also filed a notice under section 8.1 of the Act along with its list. Even assuming the employer’s list to be the correct list, the applicant has submitted membership evidence on behalf of more than 40% of those persons on the list. Accordingly, no purpose would be served in determining whether the applicant or the responding party is correct as to the number of employees in the bargaining unit. The Board will not, therefore, order the ballot box to be sealed pursuant to section 8.1.
4The responding party has also made different proposals with respect to the timing of the polls than those contained in the Notice of Vote. In the Board's view, the arrangements made by the Board provide greater access to the polling stations to employees than those arrangements proposed by the responding party. Therefore, the Board confirms the vote arrangements of which the parties have already been advised.
5There is a dispute about whether certain individuals ought to be in the bargaining unit. It appears that the disputed positions are those of Property Manager, Co-ordinator (if this is different from, or more extensive than, Team Co-ordinator and Intake Co-ordinator) and students employed during school vacation periods. If any individual holding such a position wishes to cast a ballot, the individual shall identify himself or herself as occupying a disputed position, and such individual shall be entitled to cast a ballot. Any ballot cast by such an individual shall be segregated and not counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
6The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision in places where it is likely to come to the attention of employees, and in any event near the polling stations.
7The decision of Mr. Ronson will follow.
“David A. McKee”
for the majority