2775-00-R Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Applicant v. The Corporation of the County of Lambton, 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; December 20, 2000
This is an application for certification.
The Board finds that the applicant is a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”).
It 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.
The responding party disputes the applicant's estimate of the number of employees in the applicant's proposed bargaining unit. Furthermore, the responding party proposes a different bargaining unit than that proposed by the applicant and it contends that the applicant's bargaining unit could not be appropriate. It gives notice under section 8.1 of the Act.
The Board finds that the bargaining unit described in the application could be appropriate. After comparing the membership evidence provided by the applicant as against the information provided by the responding party, the Board finds that the numerical difference between the parties is not significant. The applicant has established sufficient membership support in its proposed bargaining unit for the purposes of obtaining a representation vote and having that vote counted.
The intervenor claims to represent an unspecified number of the employees covered by this application as a result of a transfer of ambulance services to the responding party. The intervenor filed a collective agreement to which it appears to be a party together with the Lambton Hospital Group, and under which it claims bargaining rights for some or all of the employees in this application. It has filed an application (Board File No. 2797-00-R) under sections 69 and 1(4) of the Act (“the SEIU application”) and asks that the SEIU application and the certification application be consolidated. It contends that there should be no vote ordered in the certification application. The responding party also contends that the applications should be consolidated, and no vote should be ordered until the SEIU application has been resolved.
The Board is of the view that the representation vote should be taken, and in the normal time period contemplated by the Act. No party in this matter appears to be prejudiced as a result of conducting a representation vote. However, in the circumstances of the claim by the intervenor to bargaining rights for at least some of the employees covered by the application, we are also of the view that the ballot box in the representation vote should be sealed. The directing of a representation vote is without prejudice to a challenge to the timeliness of this application or any other position advanced by the parties at the hearing of this application or the SEIU application after the vote.
The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all paramedic employees of Lambton Emergency Medical Service of the Corporation of the County of Lambton, save & except supervisors & those above the rank of supervisor.
The vote will be held on December 22, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on December 15, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on December 15, 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.
The Board orders that the ballot box be sealed and the ballots not counted until the Board so orders or the parties agree.
There is a dispute between the parties as to whether or not cooperative education students should be included in the bargaining unit. If any individual holding such a position wishes to cast a ballot, the individual shall identify himself or herself as occupying a disputed position and such individual shall then be entitled to cast a ballot. Any ballot cast by such an individual shall be segregated and not counted until the Board so orders or the responding party and the applicant agree.
Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party. As this is not an application to displace the intervenor, voters will not be asked to consider the intervenor as their bargaining agent in this application.
The 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.
Any party or person who wishes to make representations to the Board about any issue remaining in dispute which relates to the application for certification, including any matters relating to the representation vote, 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).
This application is to be listed for hearing together with Board File No. 2797-00-U The panel assigned to the hearing of these files may decide the request of the responding party and the intervenor to consolidate the files.
The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Patrick Kelly”
for the Board