Ontario Labour Relations Board
Parties
2017-00-U Bruce Greensides, Mario Sousa, Applicants v. Maple Lodge Farms Ltd., Responding Party v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, local 175/633, Intervenor
2062-00-R Bruce Greensides, Mario Sousa, Applicants v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union, Local 175/633, Responding Party v. Maple Lodge Farms Ltd., Intervenor.
BEFORE: Bram Herlich, Vice-Chair, and Board Members J. A. Rundle and D. A. Patterson.
DECISION OF THE BOARD; October 17, 2000
1Board File No. 2062-00-R is an application for a declaration that the responding party (the "union") no longer represents the employees in the bargaining unit for which it is the bargaining agent.
2Board File No. 2017-00-U is an application filed pursuant to section 96 of the Labour Relations Act, 1995 (the "Act") alleging that the responding party in that case (the "employer") has violated various provisions of the Act.
3The two applications are said to be related. The applicants acknowledge that the documentary evidence they have filed in support of their application to terminate the union's bargaining rights does not represent the wishes of 40 percent or more of the employees in the bargaining unit.
4They assert, however, that the employer's alleged unlawful conduct has resulted in the loss or destruction of approximately 90 signatures of employees expressing their wish not to be represented by the union.
5In those circumstances, the applicants ask that the Board direct the taking of a representation vote pursuant to section 63(5) notwithstanding the fact that less than 40 percent of the employees appear to have expressed a wish not to be represented by the union.
6The Board is unable to do so. The statutory requirements upon which the Board's authority to direct a vote is based have not been met.
7This application is dismissed.
8The parties are no doubt aware that the Board has the power, in appropriate cases, to reconsider its own decisions.
9In relation to Board File No. 2017-00-U, the union (which has intervened) asks that the Board dismiss the matter without a hearing.
10Before ruling on that request, the Board will afford the applicants an opportunity to respond, in writing, to the union's submissions.
11The Board notes that while the application contains many generic allegations and legal conclusions about the characterization of events, it contains very little in the way of clear particularized specific allegations sufficient to allow any responding party to prepare a case in response.
12Thus, in addition to whatever response it may wish to make to the union's submissions, the applicants are hereby directed to insure that they have filed full and complete particulars of all alleged unlawful conduct. The applicants may wish to review the Board's Rules of Procedure, and, in particular, Rule 26(d) thereof.
13The applicants are directed to file the submissions directed herein and to deliver same to the other parties not later than October 27, 2000 at which time this application will, once again, be reviewed by the Board.
"Bram Herlich"
for the Board