United Steelworkers of America v. Universal Showcase Ltd.
Parties
2064-00-R United Steelworkers of America, Applicant v. Universal Showcase Ltd., Responding Party v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1072, Intervenor.
BEFORE: Marilyn Silverman, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and R. R. Montague.
Decision of Marilyn Silverman, Vice-Chair, and Board Member R. R. Montague
October 23, 2000
1This is an 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”).
3After the filing of the application for certification an intervention was filed by the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1072 (the “Carpenters’ union”) in which it asserts bargaining rights for some employees of the responding party. The applicant sought leave to amend its proposed bargaining unit description to recognize the Carpenters’ unions’ bargaining rights. The Board hereby grants leave to amend the description as requested by the applicant.
4It 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.
5The 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 from 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.
6The 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.
7The Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:
all employees of Universal Showcase Ltd. in the City of Vaughan, save and except supervisors and persons above the rank of supervisor, office, technical, engineering, clerical and sales staff and any employee for whom a trade union held bargaining rights as of October 12, 2000
8The vote will be held on October 25, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as determined by the Registrar and set out on the attached "Notice of Vote and of Hearing".
9All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on October 12, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on October 12, 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.
10There is dispute over the bargaining unit description. The responding party has four locations in the City of Vaughan: (a) 101 Marycroft Avenue; (b) 8150 Keele Street; (c) 350 Jacob Keffer Parkway; and, (d) 31 Casmir Court. The Carpenter’s union represents employees at two of these sites; being sites (c) and (d). The applicant has stated that it is not seeking to represent employees represented by the Carpenter’s union. Both the responding party and the intervenor submit that the bargaining unit should be limited to the street addresses of the two sites that are the subject of this application. The intervenor asks that the Board clarify that employees from (c) and (d) are not eligible to vote. Employees at those two locations for whom the Carpenters’ Union holds bargaining rights are not eligible to vote. If any individual whose status may be at issue on account of this dispute and who wishes to cast a vote he/she 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 parties agree. These matters may be dealt with at a hearing scheduled in this application.
11There is a dispute between the parties as to whether or not the position of supervisors 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 parties agree.
12Voters will be asked to indicate whether or not they wish to be represented by the applicant in their employment relations with the responding party.
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, other than status disputes, 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).
15The matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Marilyn Silverman”
for the majority
Decision of Board Member J. A. Rundle
October 23, 2000
I dissent.
A plain reading of sections 8 and 8.1 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the “Act”) requires the Board to seal the ballot box, when as in the instant matter, an employer has given notice that it disagrees with the trade union's estimate of the number of individuals in the unit described in the application for certification.
Subsection 8.1(4) requires the Board to seal the ballot box unless the trade union and the employer agree otherwise. Accordingly, I would have directed the ballot box to be sealed.
“J. A. Rundle”