Ontario Labour Relations Board
File No.: 1032-00-R Date: July 7, 2000
Applicant: National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) Responding Party: Trent Valley Lodge Ltd. Intervenor: Service Employees International Union, Local 183
Before: Timothy W Sargeant, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
Decision of the Board
1This is a displacement application for certification.
2The Board find that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act").
3In its application the applicant claims the following bargaining unit to be appropriate:
all employees of Trent Valley Lodge Ltd. in Trenton, Ontario, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor and office and clerical staff
4Both the responding party and the intervenor pleaded that there are currently two separate bargaining units, a full-time unit and a par-time unit as follows:
all employees of the Employer at Trent Valley Lodge Ltd., in Trenton, Ontario, save and except Supervisors, foremen, persons above the rank of Supervisor or foreman, office and clerical staff, persons regularly employed for not more than thirty-two (32) hours (or four (4) shifts) per week and students employed during the school vacation period; and
all employee of the Employer at Trent Valley Lodge Ltd., in Trenton, Ontario, regularly employed for not more than thirty-two (32) hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period, save and except Supervisors, foremen, persons above the rank of Supervisor or foreman, office and clerical staff.
5Employees in the bargaining units set out in paragraph 4 are currently represented by the intervenor.
6The collective agreements between the responding party and the intervenor for the units set out in paragraph 4 expired on July 31, 1999. According to both the responding party and the intervenor and according to documents filed a conciliation officer was appointed on July 6, 1999 To date according to both the responding party and the intervenor there has been no conciliation board appointed nor has a "No Board" report been issued.
7One of the issues raised by the intervenor is that this application is untimely and should be dismissed with a bar imposed on the applicant.
8The Board would agree that in the circumstances the application filed with the Board on July 4, 2000 may be untimely in accordance with section 67(2) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act").
9The applicant is given until July 11, 2000 to file written submissions with the Board and the other parties as to why this application should not be dismissed as being untimely. If no such submissions are receive such application will be dismissed as being untimely. However, in such circumstances no bar would be imposed.
"Timothy W. Sargeant"
for the Board