3148-99-R Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers, Local No. 880, Applicant v. 629619 Ontario Ltd. c.o.b. First Choice Haircutters, Responding Party.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF PATRICK KELLY, VICE-CHAIR, AND BOARD MEMBER H. PEACOCK; February 1, 2000.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 3, 2000
The Board is in receipt of a request by the responding party for reconsideration of the January 31, 2000 majority decision ordering a sealed representation vote in this matter.
The responding party states that the Board’s decision to select, as the voting constituency, the narrower of the two bargaining units proposed by the parties in this application for certification runs counter to the Board’s usual practice, and prejudices the responding party’s substantive right to challenge the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit in this matter and in an earlier certification application involving the same parties (Board File No. 2992-99-R). The responding party also states that the Board, by ordering the vote on the narrower bargaining unit, has “presupposed” the issue of what the appropriate bargaining unit is in both certification applications. Curiously, the relief sought by the responding party in its reconsideration request does not include a request to order the vote on the broader voting constituency. Rather, what the responding party seeks is the dismissal of this application, or in the alternative, a postponement of consideration of this matter.
We are of the view that the responding party has failed to set out the nature of any prejudice suffered by it as a result of our January 31, 2000 decision. The Board did not, as a result of that decision, determine the appropriateness of the bargaining unit proposed by the applicant. The Board found only that the bargaining unit proposed by the applicant could be appropriate. The issue of what is the appropriate bargaining unit is still in dispute and the responding party will have full opportunity to make its submissions on this issue in both files. The responding party is not precluded from making any challenge to the applicant’s proposed bargaining unit, either in this application or in Board File No. 2992-99-R.
We acknowledged in our January 31, 2000 decision that the Board’s usual practice is to order representation votes on the broadest voting constituency proposed by the parties. We also explained why we were departing from that practice in the instant case. In our view, the vote held in Board File No. 2992-99-R rendered it unnecessary to order a subsequent similarly broad voting constituency in this case. Both Board files were listed so that the panel hearing these matters can deal with the issues common to both files.
We are not prepared to reconsider the January 31, 2000 decision. The request for reconsideration is denied.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER J. A. RUNDLE; February 1, 2000
- Given the views I expressed in my dissenting decision dated January 31, 2000, I would have granted the request for reconsideration and postponed consideration of this application pending the outcome in Board File No. 2992-99-R, pursuant to section 111(3) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.
“Judith Rundle””