Ontario Labour Relations Board
3667-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Oxford Child and Youth Centre Woodstock Inc., Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Patrick Kelly, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and R. R. Montague.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 3, 2000
Decision
1The style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the correct name of the responding party: "Oxford Child and Youth Centre Woodstock Inc.".
2The intervenor filed submissions dated March 27, 2000 in which it raised concerns regarding the conduct of the representation vote held on March 20, 2000. Specifically, the intervenor alleges that the scrutineer of the responding party (the Centre"), a bargaining unit employee, allegedly also acted on behalf of the applicant at the representation vote. The intervenor states that this alleged improper conduct gave rise to the intimidation of the voters.
3As the applicant points out in its response to the intervenor's concerns, the certification worksheet signed by all of the parties, including a representative of the intervenor, contains no reference to the concerns raised by the intervenor seven days after the vote. Moreover, no employee who participated in the representation vote expressed any concern to the Board regarding the conduct of the vote. There are no particulars alleged by the intervenor suggesting that employees at the vote knew about the alleged dual role being fulfilled by the Centre's scrutineer.
4Taking the intervenor's allegations at their highest, the Board is not persuaded that the overwhelming vote results in favour of the applicant do not reflect the true wishes of the employees. The Board declines to dismiss the application or to convene a hearing to deal with this issue.
5The intervenor ("SEIU") maintains that no certificate should be issued in this matter until a hearing has been held to deal with SEIU's submissions regarding postponement of the issue of the certificate. The reasons to be advanced at such a hearing by SEIU would include the disposition of a contempt motion it is bringing before the Superior Court and the final disposition of proceedings under the constitution of the Canadian Labour Congress ("the CLC") in which it is alleged the applicant has breached the CLC constitution by bringing numerous displacement applications for certification, including this one.
6The applicant opposes any delay in the issue of a certificate.
7In its decisions of March 16, a differently constituted panel of the Board ordered the representation vote in this matter, despite SEIU's request that the Board not conduct the vote on the basis of its court motion for an injunction (which now forms the basis for SEIU's contempt motion). Moreover, the Board (again, differently constituted) dealt with similar SEIU arguments in its written decisions dated April 7, 2000 and April 18, 2000 covering this matter and a number of other certification applications. In those decisions, the Board found no support for SEIU's position concerning the contempt motion or the CLC proceedings insofar as they impact upon proceedings under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 ("the Act"). The Board in those decisions refused to adjourn the proceedings, and ordered that the ballots cast in the representation vote be counted. In respect of the post-representation vote submissions made by SEIU in this matter, and for the same reasons already articulated by the other panels of the Board in the aforementioned decisions, the Board can find no valid reason to delay the final determination of this matter. The employees have unequivocally indicated their wishes to be represented by the applicant. Section 10 of the Act directs that where more than 50 percent of the ballots cast in the representation vote are cast in favour of the applicant, the Board shall certify the applicant. There does not appear to be any Board discretion to postpone the issue of a certificate. However, even if there were such a discretion, postponement would leave the employees in at least as uncertain a labour relations position as that alleged by SEIU as a result of the issue of a certificate that continues to be the subject of ongoing litigation in other fora. The Board declines to conduct a further hearing to deal with arguments that have been previously considered and rejected by the Board.
8Insofar as the intervenor's March 27, 2000 submissions rely on the allegations contained in its intervention, those matter have been dealt with in the previous April 7 and April 18 decisions of the Board referred to above.
9Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board further finds that:
all employees of the Oxford Child and Youth Centre, in the County of Oxford, save and except supervisors, persons above the rank of supervisor and administrative assistant,
constitute a unit of employees of the responding party appropriate for collective bargaining.
On the taking of the representation vote directed by the Board, more than fifty per cent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were cast in favour of the applicant.
A certificate will issue to the applicant.
The Registrar will destroy the ballots cast in the representation vote taken in this matter following the expiration of 30 days from the date of this decision unless a statement requesting that the ballots should not be destroyed is received by the Board from one of the parties before the expiration of such 30 day period.
10Meeting and hearing dates set previously are hereby cancelled.
11The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision immediately, adjacent to all copies of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" posted previously. These copies must remain posted until the date that had been set for the hearing.
"Patrick Kelly"
for the Board