National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) v. Parkway House, Ottawa & District
File No.: 3775-99-R Date: June 6, 2000 Ontario Labour Relations Board
Applicant: National Automobile, Aerospace, Transportation and General Workers’ Union of Canada (CAW-Canada) Responding Party: Parkway House, Ottawa & District Intervenor: Service Employees International Union, Local 183
Before: Brian McLean, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and D. A. Patterson.
Decision of the Board
1This is a displacement application for certification. A representation vote was held on March 29, 2000 pursuant to an order of the Board. The ballot box was sealed and remains sealed following the taking of the vote.
2The Board is in receipt of representations from the applicant and intervenor (“SEIU”) following the taking of the representation vote and counting of the ballots.
3The SEIU takes the position that the Board should postpone its decision in this matter until the latter of two events, namely the disposition of its contempt motion to be heard before the Superior Court, or the final disposition of proceedings under the constitution of the Canadian Labour Congress (“the CLC”) in which it was found that the applicant had acted contrary to the CLC constitution in making displacement applications covering workplaces in which the intervenor held bargaining rights, including this one. SEIU contends that the issuing of a certificate at this time would potentially lead to labour relations uncertainty and chaos in the event the position of the SEIU prevails in either the court or CLC proceeding.
4The applicant opposes the postponement of the Board’s decision in this matter.
5In its decision of March 27, 2000, a differently constituted panel of the Board ordered the representation vote in this matter, despite SEIU’s request that the Board not conduct the vote on the basis of its court motion for an injunction (which now forms the basis for SEIU’s contempt motion). Moreover, the Board (again, differently constituted) dealt with similar SEIU arguments in its oral decisions dated April 6, 2000 and April 11, 2000 covering this matter and a number of other certification applications (subsequently reduced to writing). In those decisions, the Board found no support for SEIU’s position concerning the contempt motion or the CLC proceedings insofar as they impact upon proceedings under the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (“the Act”). The Board in those decisions refused to adjourn the proceedings, and ordered that the ballots cast in the representation vote be counted. In respect of the post-representation vote submissions made by SEIU in this matter, and for the same reasons already articulated by the other panels of the Board in the aforementioned decisions, the Board can find no valid reason to delay the final determination of this matter. The employees have unequivocally indicated their wishes to be represented by the applicant. Section 10 of the Act requires that where more than 50 percent of the ballots cast in the representation vote are cast in favour of the applicant, the Board shall certify the applicant. There does not appear to be any Board discretion to postpone the issuing of a certificate. However, even if there were such a discretion, postponement would leave the employees in at least as uncertain a labour relations position as that alleged by SEIU as a result of the issue of a certificate that continues to be the subject of ongoing litigation in other fora. The Board declines to postpone issuing a decision, or to conduct a further hearing to deal with arguments that have been previously considered and rejected by the Board.
6The SEIU also asserts that this application should be dismissed because the employer violated the Act by meeting with employees prior to the vote. In the absence of the type of detailed allegations about what the employer told employees as required by the Board’s Rules, this allegation does not disclose a prima facie breach of the Act. Therefore, this assertion cannot cause the Board to delay the issuance of a certificate in this matter.
7Finally, the SEIU alleges that the Board’s notice of vote was not posted in the workplace as required. The employer and the CAW dispute this allegation. Nevertheless, the Board’s notice to employees is an important component of the representation vote process. Under these circumstances, where only 12 out of 18 potential voters cast a ballot, we are concerned about the SEIU’s allegations. Accordingly, this matter will be referred to hearing on this issue alone.
8This matter is referred to the Registrar.
“Brian McLean” for the Board