United Steelworkers of America v. Sears Canada Inc.
0639-00-R United Steelworkers of America, Applicant v. Sears Canada Inc., Responding Party.
BEFORE: Anthony Brown, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and H. Peacock.
DECISION OF ANTHONY BROWN, VICE-CHAIR, AND BOARD MEMBER J. A. RONSON; June 2, 2000
1This is an application for reconsideration of a decision of the Board (differently constituted) dated June 1, 2000 in which a majority of the panel decided that the date of the representation vote in this matter shall be June 9, 2000. This date lies outside the usual five day timeline for a representation vote outlined in subsection 8(5) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act"). The applicant objects to the delay of the vote. It expresses concern that the Board did not follow its usual practice of adhering to the five-day timeline.
2In the Board’s view, the decision of June 1, 2000 is not at variance with its well-established and consistent practice concerning the timing of representation votes. It reflects the Board’s exercise of its discretion to hold the vote on a date that ensures proper notice to the affected employees and it accounts for the fact that a significant number of the employees are not scheduled to be at work on June 5 to June 8, 2000. Subsection 8(5) is clearly not intended to require the Board to ignore unique circumstances in order to stay within the five-day timeline.
“Anthony Brown”
for the majority
DECISION OF BOARD MEMBER H. PEACOCK; June 2, 2000
I dissent.
The considerations on which my colleagues in the majority rely in denying the reconsideration request of the applicant as well as those of the majority of the Albertyn panel ordering the vote for June 9th, rather than June 5th are indeed at odds with the well-established practice of adhering to the 5-day time frame. It has never been the Board’s overriding concern to accommodate the inconvenience of travel by part-time or other employees to their workplace during an off-day in order to vote. Clearly, in the normal course, a significant number, in the employer’s words, will learn of the vote from the Board’s notices posted in time for the peak weekend store hours. As in every other case coming before this Board to date, employees not scheduled to work on the vote day decide on the priorities in their lives and act accordingly. Just as citizens do in a general election.
3I regard these two decisions as an abrupt and unnecessary departure from the Board’s established case law, practice and policy.
“H. Peacock”