3747-99-R National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers Union of Canada (CAW-Canada), Applicant v. Middlesex Terrace (Part-time), Responding Party v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Timothy W. Sargeant, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Ronson and
H. Peacock.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; March 22, 2000
1This is a displacement application for certification.
2The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
3The responding party, although duly served with the application material on Friday, March 17, 2000, according to the certificate of delivery filed by the applicant, failed to file its response with the Board within the time stipulated by Rule 69 of the Board's Rules of Procedure.
4The employees are currently represented by the intervenor.
5It appears to the Board on an examination of only the information provided in the application and the information and membership evidence filed by the applicant (see section 8(3) of the Act), that not less than forty per cent of the individuals in the bargaining unit proposed in the application for certification were members of the union at the time the application was made.
6The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all of its employees, at its Nursing Home in Delaware who are regularly employed for not more than twenty-four (24) hours per week and students employed during the school vacation period, save and except professional nursing staff, registered physiotherapists, registered occupational therapists, supervisors, foremen, office staff and employees who are covered under subsisting Collective Agreements.
7The vote will be held on March 24, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
8All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on March 17, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on March 17, 2000, the certification application filing date, include employees who were not at work on that date, so long as there is a reasonable expectation of their return to employment.
9Voters will be asked to indicate whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or the intervenor in their employment relations with the responding party.
10The intervenor has filed a copy of a decision and Order of the Superior Court of Justice (dated March 1, 2000) in respect of a motion for an injunction brought by the intervenor against certain individuals formerly associated with the intervenor, now associated with the applicant. The intervenor argues that the holding of a representation vote would be contrary to the Order and therefore submits that the application should be dismissed without a vote Alternatively, the intervenor argues that no vote should be held until the Board conducts a hearing with respect to the matters raised by it. In the further alternative, the intervenor argues that if a vote is ordered, the ballot box should be sealed pending a hearing.
11As the Board stated in Delhi Nursing Home, Board File No. 3665-99-R unreported decision of March 15, 2000.
It is by no means clear that the Order of the Supreme Court of Justice has any impact upon the Board’s statutory obligations to process certification applications and to give employees the opportunity to cast ballots in representation votes, and to have those ballots counted, to determine which union will represent them for the purposes of collective bargaining. The Board’s general practice is to order certification votes if the preconditions for such orders are satisfied, and to have them counted. There are several advantages to a quick count. The Board is inclined to count the ballots in representation votes and will do so unless there are compelling reasons why the ballot box should be sealed.
In order to give the intervenor an opportunity to make representations as to how the Court’s Order may possibly affect the Board’s usual processes, this matter will be set down for hearing at an early date. The purpose of the hearing is only to consider argument on whether the Order prevents the Board from pursuing its usual process of counting ballots cast in representation votes. Should the intervenor fail to persuade the Board thereof, the parties should assume that the Board will order that the ballots will be counted after the hearing.
12In light of the above, the Board directs that the ballot box will be sealed and the ballots will not be counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
13The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" adjacent to each of the posted copies of the "Notice to Employees of Application for Certification". These copies must remain posted for 30 days.
14Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue remaining in dispute which relates to the application for certification, must file a detailed statement of representations with the Board and deliver it to the other parties, so that it is received by the Board within five days (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays on which the Board is closed) of the date on which the vote is taken. Representations with respect to any status dispute must be made in accordance with the directions provided in Information Bulletin No. 4: Status Disputes in Certification Applications (Non-Construction).
15The matter concerning the counting of the ballots described above will be heard on April 6, 2000 at 9:30 a.m. in the “Board Room”, 2nd Floor, 505 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario.
16The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Timothy W. Sargeant”
for the Board