2122-00-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. WOCO Automotive Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBERS J. A. RONSON AND D. A. PATTERSON; October 24, 2000
Given the circumstances of this case, where the applicant applied for a non-existent bargaining unit and the employer has invoked section 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, we feel that this application should be dismissed without prejudice to the union’s right to re-file for the proper unit.
"J. A. Ronson"
for the majority
"D.A. Patterson"
for the majority
DECISION OF VICE-CHAIR MARILYN SILVERMAN; October 24, 2000
1I dissent from the majority decision. This is a certification application filed pursuant to the Labour Relations Act, 1995, R.S.O. 1995, c.1, as amended (‘the Act’). The bargaining unit in the application was for all employees of the responding party in Grimsby with specific exclusions. In other respects, including the address of the responding party and the address of the location where employees work, the application referred to Concord and not Grimsby.
2The responding party provided a wider bargaining unit description to that of the applicant in its response dated October 23, 2000 and further advised that it does not have an operation at Grimsby. On October 24, 2000 the applicant advised the Board that it had made
clerical errors and provided an amended bargaining unit description. That bargaining unit description referred to Concord and had a different list of exemptions.
3It is clear that the applicant and the responding party are referring to the same workplace and the same group of employees. I am satisfied that neither party would have been prejudiced by the ordering of a representation vote. The thrust of the Act is to test employee wishes through a vote system and to order a vote in these circumstances better serves that purpose.
4I would have voted the responding party’s proposed bargaining unit because it is the larger unit and I would have segregated the ballots of the exclusions which the applicant now seeks. I would have given the responding party an opportunity to make submissions on the applicant’s amended bargaining unit description prior to the holding of the regional certification meeting.
5I consider that both parties and the employees would have been better served by dealing with the matter in this way, rather than dismissing the application and having the applicant start afresh.
"Marilyn Silverman"