Group of Employees v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220 and Grand River Hospital Corporation
3488-99-U Group of Employees, Applicant v. Service Employees International Union, Local 220 and Grand River Hospital Corporation, Responding Parties v. CAW-Canada, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Christopher J. Albertyn, Vice-Chair.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 10, 2000
1This is an unfair labour practice complaint alleges violations of various sections of the Labour Relations Act, 1995, S.O. 1995, c.1 (“the Act”).
2There have been several previous Board decisions in the matter. This decision addresses whether the applicants have established a prima facie case, and if so, whether the Board should inquire further into it.
3The applicants’ complaint concerns events that occurred between March and August 1999. At that time the SEIU, Local 220 was their bargaining agent. The employer is the result of a merger in 1995 of the Freeport Hospital and the Kitchener-Waterloo Hospital.
4The events complained of by the applicants involve a decision by the SEIU and the employer to merge various bargaining units and to combine the collective agreements which applied to those units into a single agreement. The merger was done as an alternative to proceeding under Bill 136. The applicants object that they did not have an opportunity to ratify the alteration to their terms and conditions of employment which followed the merger process. Since the term (i.e. the duration) of the original collective agreements was not altered, the SEIU did not consider it necessary to hold a ratification vote to obtain employee support for the merger of the bargaining units and the adjustments to the original collective agreements. The applicants seek relief from the Board arising from the non-ratification of the new arrangement.
5Whatever the merit of the application, it has been wholly superseded by a fundamental subsequent event. During the open period of the collective agreement which resulted from the merger, the CAW filed a certification application to displace the SEIU as the bargaining agent for the “new”, merged bargaining unit. A representation vote was held on May 2, 2000 in which the CAW established its representativeness. It was certified for the bargaining unit.
6No representations were filed by the applicants in the CAW’s application for certification. Interested persons are expressly requested to file any submissions they may wish to make to the Board concerning the application for certification and the outcome of the vote. The Board takes account of those submissions when determining a certification application. Hence the Board did not have to consider any challenge by the applicants to the certification application.
7The applicants find themselves now in the situation that their bargaining agent is the CAW. It is the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit which existed at the time it made its certification application. How that bargaining unit was constituted historically is now irrelevant. As in a novation, all that transpired previously has been superseded by the CAW’s displacement application. Any obligations by the SEIU to the applicants have been extinguished. The moment to challenge the existing bargaining unit configuration was when interested parties had an opportunity to file representations in the CAW’s certification application. That was not done by the applicants and the opportunity has now been lost.
8There is no purpose in this application proceeding. The bargaining rights of the CAW arise from the certification it was issued by the Board. It is now the bargaining agent for a bargaining unit which the Board has determined to be appropriate. No useful purpose will be served by hearing this application and inquiring into a history which cannot affect the CAW’s bargaining rights. The application is therefore dismissed.
“Christopher J. Albertyn”
for the Board