National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Park Hyatt Toronto
3971-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Park Hyatt Toronto., Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 204, Intervenor #1, v. Local 280 of the International Beverage Dispensers and Bartenders Union of the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees and Bartenders International Union, Intervenor #2.
0186-00-U National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and Patrick Warner, Alex Salagubang, Ananthanasa Verasingam and Nassir Mohamed, Applicants v. Service Employees International Union, Local 204 and Mark Ortlieb, Responding Parties.
0027-00-U Service Employees International Union, Local 204, Applicant v. National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) and Patrick Warner, Alex Salagubang, Ananthanasa Verasingam and Nassir Mohamed, Responding Parties.
BEFORE: Laura Trachuk, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and
H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; May 3, 2000
The style of cause is hereby amended to reflect the correct name of the responding party in Board File No. 3971: "Park Hyatt Toronto".
Board File No.3971-99-R is a displacement application for certification. Board File Nos. 0186-00-U and 0027-00-U are applications under section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) alleging unfair labour practices. The application filed by the applicant in the certification file alleges unfair labour practices which took place after the application was filed. All three applications are scheduled for hearing on May 8 and 9, 2000.
A representation vote was held on April 12, 2000. The ballot box was sealed as the applicant did not appear to represent 40% of the employees in the bargaining unit it sought if the employer was correct with respect to the numbers of employees in that unit. Furthermore the bargaining unit sought may not have been appropriate. Consistent with the Board’s practice, the parties have since agreed on a bargaining unit that reflects the one in the incumbent’s expired collective agreement with the responding party. The parties have also agreed that the applicant does not appear to represent 40% of the employees in that bargaining unit or the one it originally described. Therefore, pursuant to section 8.1(7) of the Act the certification application, Board File No. 3971-99-R is dismissed and the ballots shall be destroyed without being counted.
The parties may raise any preliminary issue with respect to the other two applications at the hearing on May 8, 2000.
“Laura Trachuk”
for the Board