1061-98-R International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 586, Applicant v. Megatech Electrical Ltd., Responding Party v. Construction Workers Local 52, affiliated with the Christian Labour Association of Canada (“CLAC”), Intervenor.
BEFORE: John Morgan Lewis, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. G. Knight and
G. McMenemy.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; February 8, 2000
The Board is in receipt of a number of letters from Richard Sabourin and Dough Leitch, who were employees of Megatech Electrical Ltd. (“Megatech”) and who appear to have been recently laid off. To make sense of the various correspondence, a quick review of the proceedings in this matter is in order.
On June 16, 1998, the applicant filed an application for certification with respect to Megatech in which the applicant sought to “carve out” its traditional “craft bargaining unit” from a broader based grouping of employees which were represented by CLAC. The Board directed a representation vote to be conducted on June 24, 1998. There is no dispute about the regularity of the balloting. There was a dispute, however, regarding the eligibility of two employees to vote. In its decision dated April 23, 1999, the Board (differently constituted) held that one of the disputed individuals was not eligible to vote and one was eligible and, in order to preserve the confidentiality of the wishes of the individual, directed a further representation vote to be conducted and that the voting constituency should be determined as of June 16, 1998, the date of application. Megatech, supported by CLAC, sought reconsideration of the Board’s April 23, 1999 decision. In its decision dated October 8, 1999, the Board dismissed the request for reconsideration.
On November 16, 1999, the Board directed a second representation vote to be conducted on November 30, 1999. On the taking of the vote, more than fifty percent of the ballots cast by employees in the bargaining unit were cast in favour of the applicant. Megatech subsequently requested that the Board not issue certificates to the applicant as it was preparing to judicially review the aforementioned decisions of the Board. By way of decision dated January 5, 2000, the Board declined to stay its proceedings and issued the appropriate certificates to the applicant.
The first letter received by the Board from Messrs. Sabourin and Leitch, dated December 7, 1999, challenged the Board’s decision to determine the voting constituency for the second vote as of June 16, 1998. That issue, however, was addressed at length by the Board in its decision dated April 23, 1999 and in its subsequent dismissal of the request for reconsideration. The representation of Messrs. Sabourin and Leitch were considered by the Board and were dealt with at paragraph 3 in its decision dated January 5, 2000 in the following manner:
Having regard to the fact that the representations, which are presently before the Board were the subject of a Board hearing and two fully reasoned decisions, there is no basis for the Board entertaining these representations again, under the guise of post vote representations.
On January 21, 2000, Messrs. Sabourin and Leitch again sought leave of the Board to reconsider its earlier determinations in this matter. For the reasons set out above, the January 21, 2000 correspondence does not provide a basis by which the Board would reconsider its earlier determinations in this matter.
The last two letters from Messrs. Sabourin and Leitch which were received by the Board are dated February 1, 2000 and February 2, 2000, respectively. Based upon the allegations contained therein, it would appear that in the shadow of the Board certifying the applicant, Megatech has laid off a number of its employees. While this does not form a basis for reconsideration, those laid off employees may have remedies available to them and as such, they may wish to seek legal advice to fully ascertain their rights.
“John Morgan Lewis”
for the Board