Canada Taxi Union v. Blue Line Taxi Co. Limited, 2000 CanLII 4537

File No.: 2989-99-R Date: January 13, 2000

Before: Russell Goodfellow, Vice‑Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and D. A. Patterson.

Decision of the Board

1This is an application for certification.

2The applicant has not yet been found to be a trade union within the meaning of section 1(1) of the Labour Relations Act, 1995.

3Having regard to the agreement of the parties, the Board further finds that:

all full and part time taxi drivers/owners licensed by the Municipalities of Gloucester and Cumberland including single car owner(s) and rental drivers save and except supervisors and those person(s) above the rank of supervisor(s), dispatchers, telephone staff, office staff, clerical staff, garage staff, bus drivers, independent contractors, and those employees covered by a subsisting collective agreement,

constitute a unit of employees of the responding party appropriate for collective bargaining.

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.

5Having regard to the agreement of the parties as to the appropriate bargaining unit, the Board directs that a representation vote be taken of the individuals in the following voting constituency:

6The vote will be held on January 17, 2000. Other vote arrangements will be as directed by the Registrar and set out on the attached Notice of Vote and of Hearing.

7All individuals who had an employment relationship with the responding party in the voting constituency on January 10, 2000, the certification application filing date, are eligible to vote. Employees having an employment relationship on January 10, 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.

8Voters will be asked to indicate whether they wish to be represented by the applicant or intervenor in their employment relations with the responding party.

9The intervenor has raised allegations of employer support and unfair labour practices. It has also requested a hearing with respect to the question of the applicant’s status as a trade union. In view of these issues, the ballot box will be sealed until the Board orders or the parties agree that it be opened. The intervenor, but not the responding party, has raised section 8.1 of the Act. Even assuming the intervenor’s right to rely on this provision, it is not numerically relevant. Accordingly, the ballot box will not be sealed on that basis.

10The responding party is directed to post copies of this decision and of the "Notice of Vote and of Hearing" adjacent to the "Notice to Employees of Application for Certification". These copies must remain posted for 30 days. The responding party is also directed to provide such notice via its dispatch system.

11Any 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, 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).

12The matter is referred to the Registrar.

“Russell Goodfellow”

for the Board